Report on the Status of Germplasm in the United States

Peanut Crop Germplasm Committee Crop Germplasm Committee - 2003

Dr. William Branch Dr. Thomas G. Isleib University of Georgia; CPES North Carolina State University Department of Crop & Soil Sciences Greenhouse Unit 3 PO Box 748; Rainwater Rd. PO Box 7629 Tifton, GA 31793-0748 Raleigh, NC 27695-7629 Phone: 229-386-3561 Phone: 919-515-3281 Fax: 229-386-7293 Fax: 919-515-5657 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Mark Burow Dr. Hassan A. Melouk Texas Agric. Expt. Station USDA, ARS Route 3 Box 219 Oklahoma State University Lubbock, TX 79403 Department of Pathology Phone: 806-746-6101 Stillwater, OK 74078 Fax: 806-746-6528 Phone: 405-744-9957 E-mail: [email protected] Fax: 405-744-7373 E-mail: [email protected] Mr. Michael Baring Soil and Crop Sciences; TAMU Dr. Kim M. Moore, Chair 2474 TAMUS AgResearch Consultants, Inc. College Station, TX 77843-2474 1101 Joe Sumner Rd. Phone: 979-845-4273 Ashburn, GA 31714 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 229-776-1218 Fax: 229-776-0653 Mr. Dennis Coker E-mail: [email protected] Tidewater Agric. Res. & Ext. Center 6321 Holland Road Dr. Roy Pittman, Ex-Officio Suffolk, VA 23437 USDA, ARS Phone: 757-657-6450 ext 107 Plt. Gen. Resources Conservation Unit Fax: 757-657-9333 1109 Experiment Street E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 770-229-3252 Fax: 770-229-3323 Dr. Daniel W. Gorbet E-mail: [email protected] N. Florida Res. & Educ. Center 3925 Highway 71 Dr. Naveen Puppala Marianna, FL 32446-7906 NMSU ASC - Clovis Phone: 850-482-9956 Star Route Box 77 Fax: 850-482-9917 Clovis, NM 88101 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 505-985-2292 Fax: 505-985-2419 Dr. C. Corley Holbrook E-mail: [email protected] USDA, ARS Coastal Plain Experiment Station Dr. Timothy H. Sanders PO Box 748 North Carolina State University Tifton, GA 31793 PO Box 7624 Phone: 229-386-3176 USDA-ARS Fax: 229-391-3437 Raleigh, NC 27695-7624 E-mail: [email protected] Phone: 919-515-6312 Fax: 919-515-7124 E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Charles E. Simpson Dr. David E. Williams Texas A&M University International Affairs Specialist P. O. Box 292 USDA, Foreign Agricultural Service Stephenville, TX 76401 International Cooperation and Development Phone: 254-968-4144 Research and Scientific Exchanges Division Fax: 254-965-3759 1400 Independence Ave. SW E-mail: [email protected] South Building - Room 3223 Washington, D.C. 20250-1084 USA Dr. Tom Stalker Tel: (202) 720-4090 North Carolina State University Fax: (202) 690-0892 Williams Hall 2207 Email: [email protected] PO Box 7620 Raleigh, NC 27695-7620 Dr. Karen A. Williams, Ex-Officio Phone: 919-515-2647 USDA-ARS Fax: 919-515-7959 Plant Exchange Office E-mail: [email protected] Bldg. 003, Rm. 402, BARC-WEST Beltsville, MD 20705 Dr. Allan Stoner, Ex-Officio Phone: 301-504-5421 USDA-ARS Fax: 301-504-6305 National Germ Plasm Resources Lab. E-mail: [email protected] Rm. 224, B-003, BARC-W Beltsville, MD 20705 Phone: 301-504-6235 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Shyamalrau P. Tallury North Carolina State University Greenhouse Unit 3 PO Box 7629 Raleigh, NC 27695-7629 Phone: 919-515-3809 Fax: 919-515-5657 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Barry L. Tillman N. Florida Res. & Educ. Center 3925 Highway 71 Marianna, FL 32446-7906 Phone: 850-482-1226 Fax: 850-482-9917 E-mail: [email protected] List of Contributors

LastName Initials Fletcher S.M. Gill R. Gorbet D.W. Holbrook C.C. Isleib T.G. Krapovickas A. Melouk H.A. Mozingo L.G. Ozias-Akins P. Pittman R.N. Sherwood J.L. Simpson C.E. Stalker H.T. Valls J.F.M. Williams D.E. Williams K.A. Executive Summary

A. Pest and Disease Resistance 1. Develop more efficient strategies to evaluate pest resistance 2. Identify and evaluate novel gene for resistance. 3. Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of elite and exotic germplasm collection for new pest resistance genes. 4. Improve durability of pest resistance. 5. Identify the molecular bases of host-pathogen interactions.

B. Seed Composition 1. Characterize the molecular basis for changes in seed composition. 2. Identify and quantify the impact of altered composition on agronomic performance. 3. Determine the value of altered genotypes.

C. Yield Potential 1. Identify and sequence yield genes. 2. Determine yield genes. 3. Identify genomic locations of yield genes. 4. Determine possible parental sources of positive alleles for yield.

D. Germplasm collection 1. Develop strategies for exchange of germplasm with China. 2. Develop exchange strategies for germplasm in . 3. Improve evaluation and documentation of peanut collection. Table of Contents

1 Arachis 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1.1 World production ...... 1 1.1.2 Production ...... 2 1.1.3 Policy changes related to the International Trade ...... 2 1.2 History and origin of the genus ...... 3 1.3 Origin and history of Arachis hypogaea ...... 4 1.4 Market classes of peanut ...... 4 1.5 Peanut diseases...... 5 1.6 Peanut ...... 5 1.7 Weeds ...... 6 2 Genetic vulnerability in 2.1 Genetic vulnerability of the standing US peanut crop in 2004 ...... 7 2.2 High impact diseases ...... 9 2.3 High impact insects ...... 9 2.4 Use of plant Introductions in peanut cultivar development ...... 9 2.5 Use of genetic resources in cultivar development ...... 10 2.6 Economic impact of genetic resources ...... 11 2.7 Use of wild Arachis / Introgression of genes...... 11 2.8 Transformation methods applicable to the production of transgenic peanut . 12 2.9 Enhancing beneficial traits peanut through genetic engineering ...... 12 2.10 Molecular markers of Arachis and marker assisted selection ...... 12 2.10.1 Restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLP's) ...... 13 2.10.2 Amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP's) ...... 13 2.10.3 Simple sequence repeats (SSR's) ...... 13 3 National Plant Germplasm System - Arachis 3.1 Genetic resources of Arachis ...... 14 3.2 Germplasm maintenance, preservation, and distribution ...... 14 3.3 Descriptor data...... 15 3.4 Development of core collection ...... 15 3.4.1 Utilization of peanut core collection ...... 16 3.5 Future collection efforts ...... 16 3.6 Economical benefits of genetic resources ...... 16 3.7 Geographical distribution of genetic diversity in A. hypogaea ...... 17 3.8 New directions for collecting and conserving peanut genetic diversity . . . . . 17 3.8.1 New constraints ...... 17 3.8.2 New opportunities ...... 18 3.8.3 New tools and approaches ...... 18 3.8.4 Political issues affecting International exchange of Arachis genetic 19 resources ...... 3.8.5 USDA plant explorations under the new regulations ...... 19 4 References ...... 20 5 Appendix Table 1. Distribution of certified seed acreage of peanuts in the USA in 2004 ...... 27 Table 2. Weighted average coancestries among and within production regions ...... 29 Table 3. Weighted average coancestries among and within market types . 29 Table 4. Possible high impact pathogens on peanuts ...... 30 Table 5. Possible high impact insects on peanuts ...... 32 Table 6. List of peanut cultivars registered with Crop Science ...... 43 Table 7. List of germplasm releases of peanuts registered with Crop Science ...... 46 Table 8. List of genetic stocks registered with Crop Science ...... 50 Table 9. List of peanut cultivars which have been Plant Variety Protected (PVP) ...... 51 Table 10. List of cultivated peanuts in National Plant Germplasm System . 55 Table 11. List of wild peanut species in National Plant Germplasm System...... 56 Table 12. Peanut germplasm collections made since 1932 ...... 58 Table 13. Germplasm evaluations using the peanut core collection ...... 62 Table 14. Valuable origins for disease resistance in the peanut germplasm collection ...... 62 1 The Genus Arachis

1.1 Introduction Peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) is an ancient crop of the New World that was widely grown in Mexico, Central America and South America in pre-Colombian times. The domesticated species had already evolved into subspecies and varietal groups before seeds were distributed to the Old World by early Spanish and Portuguese explorers. The first successful introductions to North America were small seeded peanuts with a runner growth habit (Higgins, 1951). These introductions were probably from northern Brazil or the , and loaded as food supplies onto ships carrying slaves from Africa to the New World. Peanut is cultivated around the world in tropical, subtropical and warm temperate climates. Peanuts are one of the principal oilseeds in the world. According to USDA estimates for the crop year 1999/2000 (FAS, 2000), from a world total oilseeds production of 286.7 million metric tons, peanuts' share was approximately 10 percent, behind (53 percent), rapeseed (15 percent), and cottonseed (12 percent). Until the mid-1980s, peanuts ranked third in terms of production among oilseeds; however, changes in consumer preferences in industrial countries due to growing health concerns fostered the production of rapeseed and sunflower seed. Peanut production can be found on all the continents, although four of them (Africa, Asia, North and South America) account for the majority of production (99 percent). Furthermore, according to USDA data (ERS, 2001), on average for the 1972-2000 period, 90 percent of the world production occurred in developing countries. Developed countries' share in total world production of peanuts has steadily decreased from approximately 12 percent during the 1970s to about 6 percent during the 1990s. In the U.S., acreage has fallen from 0.82 million ha in 1991 to 0.59 million ha in 1996, with a corresponding 0.7 million tons fewer peanuts harvested (Lamb and Blankenship, 1996). Further, the average yield per acre in the U.S. has dropped more than 9% since the 1970s, probably because of increased disease pressure, whereas yields in China and Argentina have increased more than 75%, with the introduction of improved cultivars and management practices (Carley and Fletcher, 1995). The peanut seed has from 36 to 54% oil (Knauft and Ozias-Akins, 1995) and more than half of the global crop is grown as an oilseed. Because prices on the international commodity market favor the sale of peanuts as edible seeds, most of the crop in the U.S. and South America is sold for consumption as food. In most other counties the primary use of peanut is for the oil market. However, as major producers become self-sufficient for oil production, a larger percentage of the peanut seed crop is consumed directly by humans. In addition to seeds, the foliage is an important fodder in regions where are used extensively on the farm, and the meal remaining after oil extraction is also an important source of feed.

1.1.1 World Production

-1- The world in-shell peanut production averaged 29,108 thousand metric tons during the 1996-2000 period, growing between 1972 to 2000 at an annual rate of 2.5%. The production increase was due both to an increase in the harvested area and in peanut yields. However, the latter played a more fundamental role in the production growth. During the period 1972-2000 yields steadily grew from 0.8 to 1.37 metric tons per hectare (i.e., 1.9% increase per year). During the same period, the area harvested remained approximately stable, with an annual growth of 0.1%, averaging 18.9 million hectares. Furthermore, most of the growth in harvested area occurred during the 1990s. In fact, the annual growth rate during the period 1972 to 1990 was only 0.1%, while between 1991 and 2000 the annual growth rate was 1.2%.

1.1.2 Production U. S. production of peanuts in 2003 totaled 4.14 billion pounds, up 25% from last year's crop. Planted area for the U.S., at 1.34 million acres, was down 1% from 2002. Harvested area totaled 1.31 million acres, up 1% from 2002. The yield per harvested acre averaged a record high 3,159 pounds, up 598 pounds from 2002.

1.1.3 Policy changes related to the International Trade The direction that the previous analyzed trends will take in the future will depend on how the countries respond to changes in the international and the domestic economic environment. The policy commitments agreed to by the countries under the Uruguay Round Agreement would certainly affect the amount of peanuts imported and exported. For instance, as summarized by Skinner (1999), Switzerland agreed to eliminate the duty on peanuts for human consumption over a period of 6 years beginning in 1995. Poland also will eliminate the 15 percent duty on shelled peanuts over a period of 6 years. Korea reduced the in-quota tariff on shelled peanuts from 40 to 24 percent. On July 1 [1995], Korea also liberalized imports of roasted peanuts. agreed to halve the tariff on peanut butter to 30% or 2.5 baht per kilogram. Norway agreed to cut its tariff on peanut butter from 30% to 6%. Finland agreed to bind its tariff for roasted peanuts at duty free and reduce its tariff for peanut butter from 4.3% to duty free. The United States, one of the main markets for peanut products, has substantively modified its border policy with respect to peanuts. According to Skinner (1999), as a result of the Uruguay Round Agreement, the United States replaced its import quotas for peanuts with an ad-valorem tariff equivalent to 155% for shelled peanuts and 192.7% for in-shell peanuts in 1995 (the in-quota tariff rates are 9.35 cents per kilogram for peanuts in shell and 6.6 cents per kilo-gram for shelled peanuts). From these values, the over-quota tariffs rates have been reduced by 15% to 131.8 % for shelled peanuts and 163.85 for in-shell peanuts. Furthermore, the import tariff rate quota for peanuts set at 33,770 metric tons in 1995 has reached the committed 56,821 metric tons. The tariff rate quota includes four categories of peanuts: in shell, shelled, blanched, and others. For peanut butter, the quota was set at 19,150 metric tons in 1995 and reached 20,000 tons over 6 years. The in-quota rate set at 2 cents per

-2- kilogram in 1995 was eliminated in 1998. The over-quota for peanut butter is the same as for shelled peanuts. It is important to note that a reduction of the border protection will imply a reduction in the domestic protection, too. This is important since, as mentioned in Changping et al. (1997), one of the major differences of peanuts and Chinese peanuts (major competitor at the world peanut market) is the cost associated with renting the peanut quota. With respect to the international peanut market, China has just acceded to the World Trade Organization. Although China is already granted trade concessions of the Most Favored Nation status (MFN), it will probably negotiate for a share of the U.S. tariff rate quota in the upcoming WTO Trade meetings. According to FAS data, in year 2000, China was the third exporter of peanuts to the United States (behind Argentina and Mexico) with 4.9 thousand metric tons. Argentina, another important competitor of peanuts and main exporter to the market, will probably be part of the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), under which Argentina would face an accelerated tariff reduction schedule and similar status that current NAFTA countries have. Furthermore, the recent severe devaluation of the Argentine currency (Peso) will give Argentina extra competitiveness in the export markets. However, it is important to note that the government is taxing peanut exports with a rate of 10 percent, reducing the Argentine competitiveness. Another source of competition in the domestic market will be the presence of exports from NAFTA countries, particularly peanuts from Mexico, which under the agreement will export to the United States in 2008 without tariffs. In 2000, Argentina exported 44.4 thousand metric tons of peanuts to the United States, while Mexico exported 5.6 thousand metric tons. In addition to these events, it is important to add the recent emergence/reemergence of a number of peanut exporters such as Brazil, and , which are challenging exports in traditional markets such as the European Union.

1.2 History and origin of the genus The origins of the Arachis genus are not totally clear, but little doubt remains that the genus was formed in the southwestern part of Mato Grosso do Sul, Brazil or northeast Paraguay because the most ancient species of the genus, A. guaranitica Chodat. & Hassl. and A. tuberosa Bong. ex Benth., are still growing in that area. The genus has evolved into species that fit into nine taxonomic sections (Krapovickas and Gregory, 1994) which include the most ancient section Trierectoides with its two species with three leaflets, A. tuberosa and A. guaranitica. From these ancient progenitors developed the sections Erectoides, Extranervosae, Triseminatae, and Heteranthae. The species of these four sections have varying affinities to the primitive section, as reported by Gregory and Gregory (1979) and Krapovickas and Gregory (1994) (Simpson, unpubl. data). The more advanced sections include the Caulorrhizae, Procumbentes, and Rhizomatosae. The affinities of these latter species groups are varied

-3- as well, but with very limited successes reported in crossing with species of the most advanced section, Arachis (Gregory and Gregory, 1979; Krapovickas and Gregory, 1994). The distribution of the Arachis section has overlapped that of the other sections in many areas. It is not unexpected that the most advanced species would be more adaptable to many environments and able to rapidly move to areas where the more ancient species have been adapted for many millennia.

1.3 Origin and history of Arachis hypogaea The cultigen cannot survive for many years in nature without the aid of man (or other animals) to harvest seeds each year. The most convincing data to date, indicating that A. hypogaea originated in the gardens of primitive 'hunter/gather/cultivators', come from digs on the coast of Peru two sites near Casma and another near Bermejo. In these locations, peanut shells which closely resemble the shells of A. magna Krapov., W.C. Gregory and C.E. Simpson, A. ipaensis Krapov. and W.C. Gregory, and/or A. monticola Krapov. and Rigoni were excavated from a layer where there was no indication of the presence of corn. These shells were dated at 1800 to 1500 B.C. In a dig nearby, shells were found that closely resemble A. duranensis Krapov. and W.C. Gregory dated at about the same time period. Archeological evidence similar to that found in Peru has been discovered in northwest Argentina, indicating that the hunter/gatherers possessed, and possibly grew, wild peanut fruits in the high Andes of Argentina as well, although the sample sizes of excavated shells was much smaller. This Argentine site could possibly supply some data in the future to support a two event origin of A. hypogaea, but additional data will be required to fully support such a theory. The natural distribution of the wild Arachis appears to have been made well before man arrived in South America, but man has obviously played an important role in distributing some of the cultivated species, including A. villosulicarpa, A. stenosperma, and the man selected species, A. hypogaea.

1.4 Market classes of peanut Peanut production and marketing has resulted in designation four U.S. market classes which generally correspond to subspecific and varietal groups as follows: runner (subsp. hypogaea var. hypogaea), Virginia (subsp. hypogaea var. hypogaea), spanish (subsp. fastigiata var. vulgaris), and valencia (subsp. fastigiata var. fastigiata). Runner type cultivars have medium sized pods and seeds which range from 550 to 650 mg/seed. They have a relatively long growing season, with 120 or more days needed for maturity, and are highly indeterminate. Runners have become the dominant peanut type grown due to the introduction in the early 1970’s of a new cultivar, the Florunner, which was responsible for a spectacular increase in peanut yields. Runners have rapidly gained wide acceptance because of their attractive kernel size range; a high proportion of runners are used for peanut butter. Runners, grown mainly in Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Texas and Oklahoma, account for 80% of total production. Virginia type peanuts have large pods and seeds. A premium is paid for large seeded peanuts in the U.S., which makes this market type desirable at the farmer level.

-4- However, they are generally long season and require more calcium for seed development than smaller seeded peanuts. Virginias have the largest kernels and account for most of the peanuts roasted and eaten as in shells. When shelled, the larger kernels are sold as salted peanuts. Virginias are grown mainly in southeastern Virginia, northeastern North Carolina and West Texas. Virginia-type peanuts account for about 15% of total U.S. production. Spanish types are widely grown around the world, especially where mechanization is not available. Seeds are similar in size to runner types (550 to 650 mg/seed), but yields are generally lower. The primary advantages of spanish types are their short growing season and bunch-type growth habit. Spanish type peanuts have smaller kernels covered with a reddish-brown skin. They are used predominantly in peanut candy, with significant quantities used for salted nuts and peanut butter. They have higher oil content than the other types of peanuts which is advantageous when crushing for oil. They are primarily grown in Oklahoma and Texas. Spanish-type peanuts account for 4% of production. The valencia market type grown in west Texas and eastern New Mexico and accounts for less than 1% of the market. Valencias usually have three or more small kernels to a pod. They are very sweet peanuts and are usually roasted and sold in the shell; they are excellent for fresh use as boiled peanuts. This is the only market for red seeded peanuts in the U.S.

1.5 Peanut diseases Pathogens attack all plant parts of peanut and restrict plant development throughout the growing season as well as reducing seed quality in post harvest storage (Porter et al., 1982). Significant crop losses occur in most production areas. Cultural practices, such as the elimination of alternate host plant species from field edges, crop rotation, chemical control and use of resistant cultivars have lessened or eliminated several disease problems, but neither cultural control nor genetic resistance has been found for several others. On a global scale, the leaf spots [caused by Cercospora arachidicola Hori and Cercosporidium personatum (Berk. & Curt.) Deighton] and rust (caused by Puccinia arachidis Speg.) are the most destructive pathogens of peanut. Together they can cause up to 70% yield losses (Subrahmanyam et al., 1984), and even when fungicides are applied significant yield reductions can occur. Rust currently is not a serious problem in the U.S.A,., but almost all U.S. producers expend significant effort on control of leaf spots. Further, shifts have occurred from one leaf spot to the other as cultivars are released with different tolerance levels. As a result, multiple disease resistance factors may be needed to solve the most important disease problems of peanut.

1.6 Peanut insects In addition to directly lowering yields, insects serve as vectors for viruses and damage pods and seeds, making them undesirable for commerce. Both pre- and post-harvest pests cause significant economic losses in peanut. On a global scale, the most important insects include aphids, , jassids, and Spodoptera (Isleib et al., 1994). However, insect populations vary greatly among production regions and even from year to year within the same area. In Asia, white grubs, termites, millipedes and ants are

-5- problem pests. In the U.S., the lesser cornstalk borer and southern corn rootworm cause the greatest damage to pods. Thrips are the most important insect because they vector the tomato spotted wilt virus.

1.7 Weeds Because the peanut plant produces pegs that grow into the soil from branches, weed control through tillage is more difficult in peanut than for many other crop species. Yields may be suppressed when fields with a partial cover of peanut plants are cultivated (Buchanan et al., 1982). Two or more months are necessary for peanut plants to completely cover the soil surface, and weeds can easily become established during this time. Further, canopy depth for runner types is relatively shallow, which does not help to suppress competitive plant species. Weed control costs are estimated at $132/ha in Texas to $391 /ha in Florida (Wilcut et al., 1995). Weeds generally cause greater yield reductions when at high population levels early in the growing season (Wilcut et al., 1995), but relatively little research has been done to establish economic threholds for weed populations. Thus, cultivars which initially grow quickly and cover the soil are highly desirable.

-6- 2. Genetic vulnerability in peanuts

2.1 Genetic Vulnerability of the Standing US Peanut Crop in 2004 The genetic vulnerability of the standing peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) crop is a function of its degree of genetic uniformity. Uniformity or diversity can be viewed simplistically as the array of cultivars being grown. The array of peanuts being grown in 2004 can be ascertained with a reasonable degree of accuracy from the records of seed production the previous year (Appendix: Table 1). The array varies across the three main peanut production regions within the USA - the Southeast region (Georgia, Florida, Alabama, and South Carolina) where the runner market-type predominates; the Southwest region, (Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico) where runner, virginia, spanish, and valencia market types are all grown; and the Virginia-North Carolina (VC) region where only the virginia market type is grown. The Southeast has a history of monoculture with the dominant cultivar changing periodically. The current dominant cultivar is Georgia Green which rose to prominence because of its field resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus. Because the runner market type occupies approximately 79% of the total peanut acreage in the USA and the Southeast is the largest production region, Georgia Green is currently the most widely grown peanut cultivar in the country, occupying approximately half the peanut acreage in the USA as a whole and 80% of the acreage in the Southeast. The second most common cultivar in the USA is Flavor Runner 458, a cultivar with elevated oleic fatty acid content in the seed oil derived by mutation of the Florunner cultivar. Flavor Runner 458 is the most common runner cultivar grown in the Southwest, occupying over one third of the acreage in that region but only about 8% of the acreage nationally. The VC region is more diverse with five cultivars occupying 15 to 20% of the acreage. The array of cultivars in a region does not wholly describe the level of genetic uniformity as the cultivars can be related to a greater or lesser degree. There are several measures of genetic uniformity of a group of cultivars, including ones based upon the frequencies of alleles or markers covering the majority of the species’ genome. Peanut, an amphidiploid species (2n=4x=40) ostensibly originating from a relatively recent natural hybridization between two diploid (2n=2x=20) progenitors, exhibits very little polymorphism at the molecular level in spite of the high levels of morphological and physiological variation observed within the species. Because an estimate of uniformity based on markers would necessarily be very high, the older method of estimating uniformity based on genetic coancestry, i.e., the probability that two cultivars are carrying alleles identical by descent (Malècot, 1948), was used. For each cultivar for which seed was produced in 2003, the parentage was traced back to ancestors for whom no further information could be found. Pedigree information was gathered from published registration articles, release notices, internal documents of the North Carolina and Florida breeding projects, and by personal communication with breeders in other states. Each cultivar was assigned to a breeding cycle based on the number of cycles of crossing and selection it was removed from the founding ancestors. In this system, ancestors were assigned to Cycle 0, selections from Cycle 0 ancestors or

-7- progeny from crosses between Cycle 0 lines were assigned to Cycle 1, and so on. Each line was assigned to a cycle one higher than the higher of its parents. Coefficients of coancestry of each cultivar with each of the others were then calculated. 2 The coancestry between lines X and Y, XY, is the probability that a gene randomly sampled from line X is identical by descent to a gene randomly sampled from Y, i.e., the two genes are meiotic/mitotic copies of a gene inherited by each line from a common ancestor. The rules for calculation of coancestry are well known (Malécot, 1948; Kempthorne, 1969). If A and B are the parents of X, and C and D the parents of Y, then 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 XY = ( XC + XD)/2 = ( AY + BY)/2 = ( AC + AD + BC + BD)/4. The expressions are expanded back until they intersect at a common ancestor, W, at which point they include 2 2 a term WW, the coancestry of a line with itself which is WW = (1+FW)/2 where FW is the coefficient of inbreeding or the probability that the two genes carried by W are identical by descent. For purposes of this study, all lines were assumed to be completely inbred (F=1). These rules were developed for outcrossing species, but they can be adapted for use in self-pollinated species. If one assumes that the probability of fixation under self- pollination of the gene derived from either parent of a cross is one half (St. Martin, 1982), then the computational rules for self-pollinators are identical to those for cross- pollinators. Additional rules are required to determine the coancestry of lines derived by self-fertilization from the same cross (Cockerham, 1983). For lines derived by selection within an existing line, either with or without mutagenesis, it was assumed that the coancestry between the parent and selected line was 0.99. To estimate the coancestry of plants chosen at random from a particular peanut- producing region, weighted averages of coancestries were calculated using the 2003 certified acreage (Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, 2003) expressed as a proportion of the total acreage for the region as the weighting variable. Weighted averages were calculated for the USA as a whole and for the three main production regions. Weighted averages also were calculated for the four market types of peanuts grown in the USA: runner, virginia, spanish, and valencia. The coancestry of two peanut plants randomly chosen from the USA as a whole in 2004 is expected to be 0.415, 0.716 in the Southeast where the single cultivar Georgia Green occupies approximately 80% of the acreage, 0.396 in the Southwest, and 0.412 in the VC region. Within the runner market type in the USA as a whole the coancestry between two randomly chosen plants is expected to be 0.597; within the virginia market type 0.375, within the spanish market type 0.722, and within the valencia market type 0.346. Clearly, the region with the greatest genetic vulnerability is the Southeast due to the dominance of Georgia Green while the market type with the greatest genetic vulnerability is the spanish type whose production is confined entirely to the Southwestern region and which occupies only about 2% of peanut acreage in the USA. There was substantially greater average coancestry within production regions than between regions (Appendix: Table 2) due to the differences among regions in the market types and specific cultivars within market types grown in the regions. Cultivars from different market types are much less related to each other than they are to other cultivars within the market type (Appendix: Table 3), particularly when the

-8- comparison is between a market type derived primarily from ancestry of subsp. hypogaea var. hypogaea and a market type derived from ancestry of subsp. fastigiata Waldron var. fastigiata (the valencia market type) or subsp. fastigiata var. vulgaris Harz (the spanish market type. Although there has been substantial introgression of subsp. fastigiata genes, particularly from spanish ancestors, into the runner and virginia market types (Isleib, 2001), the specific ancestors are different from those that figure in the ancestry of current spanish and valencia type cultivars.

2.2 High impact diseases The peanut plant is subject to attack by many pathogens. The pathogens causing diseases and economic losses on peanut are endemic to the peanut growing areas of the United States. Most of the pathogens that attack peanut are of fungal origin. Also, viruses, bacteria, nematodes, and phytoplasmas attack peanut in the USA, causing economic damage. See Appendix: Table 4 for possible high impact pathogens on peanut.

2.3 High impact insects The peanut plant is also subject to attack by many insects. Insects causing damage and economic losses on peanut are endemic to the peanut growing areas. See Appendix: Table 5 for possible high impact insects on peanuts.

2.4 Use of Plant Introductions in Peanut Cultivar Development The genetic base of peanut in the USA has at times been extremely narrow, particularly in specific production areas where a single cultivar may be grown in near monoculture. Because peanut is not a native North American species, all cultivars necessarily trace their ancestry to plant introductions (PIs). Most of the genetic base of current cultivars rests on selections from farmer stock peanuts of obscure origin. Over the past 20 yr, there have been concerted efforts to incorporate additional germplasm into U.S. breeding populations, usually with the purpose of improving resistance to diseases or pests, but also with the objective of broadening the genetic base. These efforts have had a significant economic impact on peanut farmers, the largest from the development of cultivars with resistance to Sclerotinia blight (Sclerotinia minor Dagger), rootknot nematodes (Meloidogyne spp), and tomato spotted wilt virus. Use of these resistant cultivars has an economic impact of more than $200 million annually for peanut producers. As of July 2004, 79 peanut cultivars have been released in the U.S.(Appendix: Table 6) through the Journal of Crop Science, 53 released prior to 1961 when the Crop Science Society of America (CSSA) began to register crop cultivars and 121 germplasm releases (Appendix: Table 7) and eight genetic stocks (Appendix: Table 8). Material can be obtained from the National Plant Germplasm System web site at www.ars-grin.gov/npgs). Seventy four cultivars have been registered for protection under Plant Variety Protection (Appendix: Table 9). Several have expired, been abandoned or withdrawn from the process. Forty three have certificates issued and thirteen are pending. In spite of the large number of cultivars available to growers, the peanut crop has been

-9- characterized as being genetically vulnerable to diseases and insect pests (Hammon, 1972, 1976; Knauft and Gorbet, 1989). One of the ways that plant breeders can increase the genetic diversity of a crop is to incorporate diverse germplasm into the breeding populations from which cultivars derive. The first peanut introduction of the modern era was PI 4253, collected by B. Lathrop and D.G. Fairchild in 1899 and identified as the prize winning peanut from the 1898 exposition of the Khedival Agricultural Society of Cairo, Egypt (USDA, 1900, 1901). There have been thousands of accessions introduced and numbered by the USDA since that time. Many were donated by diplomats, missionaries, and travelers in foreign countries. Others were provided by foreign governments and agricultural research institutions as part of germplasm exchanges with U.S. institutions. Still others were collected as part of a coordinated effort by the USDA and international agencies to collect and preserve natural genetic diversity before it erodes through the displacement of farmer held seed stocks by improved cultivars.

2.5 Use of genetic resources in cultivar development Because peanuts as a crop were introduced to what is now the USA, all peanut cultivars necessarily trace back to plant introductions. However, much of the genetic base of current cultivars traces back to ancestors that were developed by mass selection from farmer stock peanuts in the various production areas (Isleib and Wynne, 1992). Much of the base of improved runner and virginia cultivars rests on four ancestors used as parents in the early years of peanut improvement, including var. hypogaea lines Dixie Giant and Basse and var. vulgaris Harz lines Small White Spanish and Spanish 18-38. Of these, only Basse is known to have been introduced in the modern era of plant collection. Most current runner and virginia type cultivars trace their ancestry back to these two crosses through Florispan and its close siblings, derived from a cross between GA 207-1 and F230-118-2-2, and their immediate descendants Florunner and Florigiant. In addition to the four primary ancestors of runner-type cultivars, the early virginia market type cultivars had additional infusion of ancestry from farmer stock selection Jenkins Jumbo, a large seeded selection from farmer stock used as a parent in the Florida program, a group of five lines (NC 4, NC Bunch, White's Runner, Improved Spanish 2B, and PI 121067) among seven used by W.C. Gregory to initiate the breeding program at N. C. State Univ., and Atkins Runner, an ancestor used by the USDA breeding program in Virginia. Of these additional early ancestors of the virginia market type, only PI 121067 is a modern plant introduction. A different set of introductions including PI 121070, PI 161317, PI 268661, and A. monticola Krapov. & Rigoni were used as parents in theTexas and Oklahoma breeding programs. The remaining five introductions that appear in the pedigrees of runner-type cultivars (PI 121067, PI 121070, PI 616317, PI 259785, and PI 221057) do so through crosses of runner type parents with virginia type and spanish type parents. Only three plant introductions appear in the pedigrees of improved virginia type cultivars: Basse, PI 121067,and PI 337396. Most runner and virginia type cultivars are characterized as having had some introgression of genes from subsp. fastigiata Waldron, mostly from var. vulgaris but to

-10- some extent from var. fastigiata. Spanish type cultivars are more varietally pure than other market types for the most part.

2.6 Economic impact of genetic resources The genetic variability contributed to breeding populations by the introgression of genes from introductions has no doubt contributed to genetic gain in the development of cultivars that possess no salient disease resistance or other introduction derived trait. However, the economic impact of such introgression is difficult if not impossible to measure. Genetic resources have been particularly useful in adding disease resistance to peanut cultivars. This has had significant economic impact on peanut farmers, the largest from the development of cultivars with resistance to Sclerotinia blight, rootknot nematode, and tomato spotted wilt virus. Use of Sclerotinia resistant cultivars increases yield and reduces fungicide costs. The estimated impact from the use of these resistant cultivars is $5 million annually. COAN, a nematode-resistant runner type cultivar, was developed by introgressing resistance from wild diploid peanut species. A nematode-resistant cultivar would save southwestern peanut growers an estimated $6.5 million annually in increased yields and reduced nematicide costs. In the Southeastern USA, TSWV was detected in peanut in 1987, and its incidence has increased substantially in the ensuing years (Culbreath et al., 1992). PI 203396 was an ancestor to many breeding populations in the Southeast due to its resistance to late leaf spot. Fortunately, PI 203396 also has resistance to TSWV that was transmitted to resistant runner type cultivars Southern Runner, Georgia Green, Florida MDR 98, and C-99R. Under severe TSWV pressure, the additional economic return from growing these cultivars in comparison to previous susceptible cultivars is in excess of $500 per acre. Assuming that half of the peanut acreage in the Southeast has severe TSWV pressure, the economic impact of this resistance is more than $200 million annually.

2.7 Use of wild Arachis Species/Introgression of genes The desire to transfer genes from wild Arachis species into cultivated peanut has burned brightly since the 1940s when both W.C. Gregory and A. Krapovickas first attempted to cross wild peanuts. The first peanut cultivars released from interspecific hybridization were by Hammons (1970) and Simpson and Smith (1975). Hammons released cv. Spancross in 1970 from the cross A. hypogaea x A. monticola Krapov. & Rigoni, which was also the same source of cv. Tamnut 74 released by Simpson and Smith. Neither of these cultivars had phenotypic characters that could be identified as derived from the wild species. In 1999, Simpson and Starr (2001) released the first rootknot nematode resistant peanut cultivar, COAN. This new cultivar contains a gene for the pest resistance which was transferred from A. cardenasii Krapov. & W.C. Gregory in an intensive backcrossing program (Simpson, 1991). Several programs have released lines which have been derived from interspecific hybridization, including Simpson et al. (1993) and Stalker and Beute (1993).

-11- 2.8 Transformation methods applicable to the production of transgenic peanut Although some evidence for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation was published in the early 1990s (Eapen and George, 1994 and McKently et al., 1995), the first thoroughly documented Agrobacterium mediated transformation of peanut was reported in a series of publications using the cultivar, New Mexico Valencia A (Cheng et al., 1997; Cheng et al., 1996; and Li et al., 1997). Li et al. (1997) unequivocally demonstrated foreign gene integration in multiple transgenic events derived from this cultivar. Stable transformation of peanut has been accomplished by microprojectile bombardment of embryogenic cultures and selection on hygromycin (Ozias-Akins et al., 1993) or bombardment of apical and lateral meristems on the embryo axis followed by screening for reporter gene activity (Brar et al., 1994). Bombardment of embryogenic cultures and selection on hygromycin appears to be the most widely applicable technology since it has been used by at least three different groups to transform multiple cultivars including runner, virginia, and spanish market types (Livingstone and Birch, 1999; Magbanua et al., 2000; Ozias-Akins et al., 1993; Singsit et al., 1997; Wang et al., 1998; and Yang et al., 1998).

2.9 Enhancing beneficial traits in peanut through genetic engineering In addition to the selectable marker and reporter genes described above, genes for insect and virus resistance have been introduced into peanut (Brar et al., 1994; Li et al., 1997; Magbanua et al., 2000; Sharma and Anjaiah, 2000; Singsit et al., 1997; Yang et al., 1998). Introduction of the nucleocapsid protein gene from the tomato spotted wilt virus into peanut (Brar et al., 1994; Li et al., 1997; Magbanua et al., 2000; Yang et al., 1998) may eventually allow the recovery of highly resistant genotypes; however, durable and high levels of resistance have not been achieved to date (Li et al., 1997; Magbanua et al., 2000). Finally, there are numerous traits that potentially could be manipulated with single or few gene introductions to produce more pest resistant, healthier, higher quality peanuts. These include oil quality such as a high oleic acid (Jung et al., 2000), reduced allergenicity by down regulation of highly allergenic peanut proteins (Burks et al., 1998), herbicide tolerance (Kishore et al., 1992), insect resistance using genes other than Bt (Hilder and Boulter, 1999), fungal resistance (Bent and Yu, 1999; Melchers and Stuiver, 2000), nematode resistance (Vrain,1999), and nutrient composition (Hirschberg, 1999). Such traits collectively would benefit growers, manufacturers, and consumers thus resulting in increased marketability of peanuts as a commodity and wholesome, healthy food.

2.10 Molecular markers of Arachis and marker assisted selection The theory behind this method is that plant breeders could observe easy to score phenotypes to select difficult to score or low heritability traits that are linked to them (Tanksley, 1983). A good marker should (a) allow the separation of homozygotes from

-12- heterozygotes, thus allowing more genetic gain per generation than is possible without using the marker; (b) have early expression in the plant, thus saving time waiting for the desired phenotypeto develop; and (c) not have interactions with other markers (Arus and Moreno Gonzalez, 1993). With the development of molecular markers there has been great potential for increasing breeding efficiency because many of the marker systems have large numbers of polmorphisms; alternate alleles rarely have deleterious effects at the molecular or whole plant level; they are often codominant, allowing all genotypes to be distinguished in each generation; and they rarely segregate in epistatic ratios. Isozymes have been associated with agronomic traits in several crops but, in peanut, isozymes do not generate enough polymorphisms in most species to be useful for crop improvement (Weeden, 1989).

2.10.1 Restriction fragment length polymorphisms (RFLPs) In A. hypogaea, little molecular variation has been detected by using RFLP technologies (Kochert et al., 1991) or exotic germplasm lines (Halward et al., 1992). Kochert et al. (1996) also reported that no variation was found between A. hypogaea and A. monticola Krapov. & Rigoni. However, significant amounts of variation have been observed among Arachis species (Kochert et al., 1991; Paik-Ro et al., 1992).

2.10.2 Amplified fragment length polymorphisms (AFLPs) He and Prakash (1997) were the first investigators to report applications of AFLP technologies in peanut. They used 28 primer pairs to generate 111 AFLP markers in A. hypogaea. Their results indicated that about 3% of the primers used for DNA amplification were polymorphic.

2.10.3 Simple sequence repeats (SSR) markers Hopkins et al. (1999) reported six polymorphic SSRs in A. hypogaea with the number of fragments amplified per SSR ranging from two to 14, and differentiated 15 of 19 accessions of cultivated peanut. He et al. (2003 reported 19 polymorphic markers among the genotypes tested. The average number of alleles per locus was 4.25 with up to 14 alleles found at one locus. Ferguson et al. (2004) added 110 new polymorphic markers. Ferguson found two to 5.7 alleles per locus. Recent work on SSR markers have brought the total number of markers to 135.

-13- 3. National Plant Germplasm System Arachis 3.1 Genetic resources of Arachis The USDA maintains an extensive collection of Arachis germplasm. The working collection is maintained by the Plant Genetic Resource Conservation Unit (PGRCU) in Griffin, GA. Much of this collection is maintained also under long-term seed storage condition at the National Center for Genetic Resources Preservation (formerly known as the National Seed Storage Laboratory) in Ft. Collins, CO. The working collection consists of 9,142 accessions of A. hypogaea L. (Appendix: Table 10) and 611 accessions of Arachis species (Appendix: Table 11). Large Arachis species collections in the USA are also maintained at Texas A&M Univ. and North Carolina State Univ. (Stalker and Simpson, 1995). About half of the accessions are unimproved landraces collected from expeditions made to South America, which contains the centers of origin and diversity for peanut. These expeditions were sponsored by the USDA and the Int. Board of Plant Genetic Resources (IBRGR) in cooperation with state experiment stations in the U.S., and by several other countries as described by Isleib et al. (1994) and Stalker and Simpson (1995) (Appendix: Table 12). About one-third of the accessions in the collection originated from Africa. Much of this germplasm was introduced into the U.S. by J. Smartt during the 1960s (Wynne and Gregory, 1981). In many cases, collected Arachis germplasm has been deposited in both the USDA germplasm system and in the Genetic Resource Unit of the International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Andhra Pradesh, . The extent of duplication between the USDA and ICRISAT collections is not known, but has been estimated to be between one-third and one-half of the ICRISAT collection (Knauft and Ozias-Akins, 1995). As pointed out by Knauft and Ozias-Akins (1995), additional important germplasm resources in the USA exist in the peanut breeding programs of Texas A&M Univ., North Carolina State Univ., Univ. of Georgia, Univ. of Florida, USDA, Oklahoma State Univ., Virginia Tech, and New Mexico State Univ. Many unique breeding lines developed to have tolerance to various biotic and abiotic stresses are maintained and preserved in these programs.

3.2 Germplasm Maintenance, Preservation, and Distribution Maintenance of accessions is generally straightforward. Seed regeneration is based on the total number of seed available for distribution and the number of requests made by the user community. Both the USDA peanut curator and plant breeders from private industry, universities, and the USDA have cooperated in the regeneration of material to assure adequate seed reproduction. After drying to 5-7% moisture, seed are stored under controlled environmental conditions following the recommendation of Sanders et al. (1982) who concluded that the sum of temperature (F) plus relative humidity (RH) should be less than 100 to have optimal seed storage. Peanut seed for the working collection are stored at 4 C and 25% RH. Material which is infrequently requested is stored at -18 C. Preservation of wild Arachis species is much more difficult than for A. hypogaea,

-14- particularly for accessions that produce few, if any, seed. Approximately 28% of the species accessions produce very few seed, especially the section Rhizomatosae, which are maintained as vegetative materials in the greenhouse (Stalker and Simpson, 1995). Most perennial Arachis species can be maintained for many years as original plants or cuttings in greenhouse pots. However, they must be frequently observed and maintained to prevent contamination. An international cooperative effort is underway to insure that these vegetatively propagated species are maintained in multiple environments so that they can be suitably conserved while minimizing the danger of loss (Singh and Simpson, 1994). This effort involves the cooperation of the USDA, North Carolina State Univ., Texas A&M Univ., ICRISAT, the Brazilian Corporation for Agricultural Research Botanical Institute (EMBRAPA), the Brazilian National Center for Genetic Resources and Biotechnology (CENARGEN), the Argentina National Institute of Agriccultural Technology (INTA), and the Argentina Botanical Institute of the Northeast (IBONE).

3.3 Descriptor Data Without adequate characterization data plant breeders cannot know which accessions may be useful parents for cultivar development. Standards for characterizing A. hypogaea accessions have been published by IBPGR and ICRISAT (1992) and the USDA (Pittman, 1995). This involves the characterization of a range of attributes called descriptors. Simpson et al. (1992) applied 53 of the IBPGR and ICRISAT descriptors to 2000 accessions collected from 1977 to 1986 in South America and observed a large amount of variation in pod and seed characteristics. Holbrook and Anderson (1993) applied the USDA descriptors to accessions in the core collection. However, due to the limited resources that have been devoted to germplasm evaluation, little to no evaluation data are available for many accessions. Without these data the potential value of this material will remain unknown. Development of the Germplasm Resource Information Network (GRIN) “http://www.ars-grin.gov”, a database of descriptor information for each plant introduction in the USDA system, has made it much more efficient to access information regarding the collection. This information can be easily accessed, and plant introductions containing desired characteristics can be ordered for use in research or cultivar development. A pcGRIN version is available also on disk for use when internet access is not available (USDA, 1992).

3.4 Development of a Core Collection Utilization of germplasm collections can be enhanced by the development of more efficient evaluation techniques. The core collection can serve as a working collection that could be extensively examined, and the accessions excluded from the core collection would be retained as the reserve collection (Frankel, 1984). This proposal was further developed by Frankel and Brown (1984) and Brown (1988, 1989) who described methods to select a core collection using information on the origin and characteristics of the accessions. The germplasm collection was the first major germplasm collection to have a working

-15- core collection (Holbrook et al., 1993).

3.4.1 Utilization of the Peanut Core Collection The efficiency gained by screening the peanut core collection has greatly increased the use of the peanut germplasm collection. In the USA, peanut is a regional crop with relatively few individuals involved in breeding and genetic research. Evaluation of core accessions for 24 characteristics (Appendix: Table 13) has resulted in the identification of numerous sources of resistance to several economically significant pathogens. Data generated from research with the core collection have been used to identify the geographical distribution of resistance to five important diseases of peanut (Holbrook and Isleib, 2001). By screening germplasm more intensely from these countries peanut breeders can utilize more efficiently the genes for disease resistance that are available in the germplasm collection.

3.5 Future Collection Efforts Williams (2001) discussed emerging technologies using the geographical information system (GIS) to more effectively study, locate, and conserve Arachis genetic resources. He examined existing germplasm collections and the geographical distribution of genetic diversity and concluded that additional collection of wild Arachis species is warranted in eastern Bolivia and northwestern Paraguay. Several areas of primary and secondary centers of diversity that warrant further collection of the cultivated species were listed also. Stalker and Simpson (1995) also discussed collection needs, and stated that there is an immediate need for collecting more A. hypogaea subsp. hypogaea var. hirsuta accessions because they are poorly represented in both the USDA and ICRISAT collections. Future collection efforts also were discussed by Singh and Simpson (1994). In addition, these authors stressed the need to accelerate efforts on characterization and evaluation of germplasm so that it can be used effectively and with confidence by breeders. Since the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) in 1993, many countries containing high levels of diversity of Arachis have implemented laws regulating access to their genetic resources. Currently, all countries in South America except Paraguay have regulations restricting access to their germplasm. Williams and Williams (2001) discussed innovative, mutually beneficial arrangements which have been developed and used to collect Arachis germplasm under CBD regulations. A memorandum of understanding also has been signed by the USDA and ICRISAT to facilitate germplasm exchange between these institutes in light of the CBD regulations (Shands and Bertram, 2000). Both institutions have agreed to forego claims of ownership and intellectual property rights on exchanged germplasm. The same policy applies to germplasm forwarded to state or private institutions when it is passed through the USDA (Williams and Williams, 2001).

3.6 Economic Benefits of Genetic Resources Reducing input costs associated with pest management is becoming increasingly

-16- important in the USA due to changes in the federal peanut support program (Jordan et al., 1999). Peanut cultivars with disease resistance will allow producers to decrease costs of production and become more competitive with world market prices. Wynne et al. (1991) summarized progress in breeding peanut for disease resistance. They concluded that, although several breeding programs had been initiated for developing resistance to diseases during the 1980s, few cultivars had been released by the early 1990s due to the short duration of the programs. However, these efforts had resulted in the identification of many sources of disease resistance in peanut germplasm collections, and they predicted that resistant cultivars would be forthcoming. This prediction is currently being realized. Isleib et al. (2001) summarized the use of genetic resources in peanut cultivar development and concluded that there have been significant economic impacts for the peanut farmer. The largest impact has been through the development of cultivars with resistance to Sclerotinia blight, rootknot nematodes, and tomato spotted wilt virus. Use of cultivars with these resistances have had an economic impact of more than $200 million annually for peanut producers.

3.7 Geographical Distribution of Genetic Diversity in Arachis hypogaea Countries of origin that are valuable sources of resistance to important diseases of peanut are presented in the Appendix: Table 14. Peanut breeders or pathologists who are interested in sources of resistance to the peanut root-knot nematode should focus their efforts on accessions from China or Japan. Bolivia is an important region for sources of resistance to both leaf spot pathogens. India, , and Sudan were also important countries for resistance to early leaf spot, whereas Ecuador was the only other country where resistance to late leaf spot was more prevalent than expected. Peru appears to be the most valuable country for resistance to CBR. Resistance to TSWV was more prevalent than expected in accessions from India, Israel, and Sudan. Researchers who are interested in parents with multiple disease resistance should consider accessions from India, Mozambique, and Senegal. These observations should enable peanut breeders to more efficiently utilize genetic resources for disease resistance that are available in accessions present in the U.S. germplasm collection.

3.8 New Directions for Collecting and Conserving Peanut Genetic Diversity 3.8.1 New Constraints In addition to the scarcity of money, trained personnel, and institutional support that have long been limiting factors for peanut genetic resources exploration and conservation, researchers must now also comply with an entirely new set of legal regulations before further international collaborations involving access and exchange can be implemented. In an effort to promote the conservation, sustainable use, and equitable sharing of benefits derived from genetic resources, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adopted internationally in 1994, recognized national sovereignty over genetic resources and prescribed national regulation of access to those resources. Consequentially, cumbersome regulations governing access and

-17- exchange of genetic resources recently have been put into effect in many countries. New legislation in several countries already has placed a significant constraint on international exchange and conservation of peanut genetic resources. One of the immediately tangible effects of the recent access legislation has been an abrupt decrease in internationally supported peanut explorations, as the formal mechanisms for complying with the new requirements are still in the process of being worked out in many countries. Ironically, these new obstacles to international collaboration are especially pronounced in the Latin American countries where the peanut's greatest diversity occurs, yet where, in many cases, the national capacity to conserve and use these genetic resources is still lacking.

3.8.2 New Opportunities The capacity of the Geographic Information System (GIS) to integrate, analyze, and correlate huge amounts of relevant data makes it an invaluable new tool for planning effective peanut collecting and conservation activities. Furthermore, the host country's commitment to share the responsibilities associated with the conservation and use of their sovereign genetic resources becomes explicit within the context of their new legislation. This recognition of responsibility by the countries themselves will serve to strengthen their national commitment and capacity to conserve and use their own genetic resources, and to engage in effective partnerships with other countries. Moreover, the legal access agreements between cooperating countries will help formalize and promote international partnerships on Arachis conservation. Such partnerships are indispensable for achieving effective long term conservation, both ex situ and in situ, and will broaden the overall benefits derived from the use of peanut genetic resources.

3.8.3 New Tools and Approaches The present availability of digitized data on Arachis diversity, distribution, tax- onomy, characterization, and evaluation, together with other information on relevant human and physical, biotic, and abiotic variables, makes it possible for researchers to use GIS technology to more effectively study, locate, and conserve Arachis genetic resources (Guarino et al., 2001). Because of its ability to integrate different kinds of georeferenced data, GIS technology enables researchers not only to precisely map the distribution of different taxa but also to analyze the distribution of Arachis diversity and to correlate that diversity with other variables such as climate, topography, and soils, as well as relevant socioeconomic information such as demographic growth agricultural activity, urban expansion, market access development projects, ethnic diversity, etc. In the case of wild Arachis species, GIS applications such as FloraMap (Jones and Gladkov, 1999) can predict effectively the potential distribution of poorly known specie based on climate. One of the main advantages of a complementary conservation strategy is that the different conservation methods act as a sort of security backup for one another, although the germplasm conserved in situ continues to evolve and/or erode in

-18- response to its environment while the sample stored ex situ remains comparatively static.

3.8.4 Political Issues Affecting International Exchange of Arachis Genetic Resources While a considerable amount of Arachis germplasm has been conserved in international collections, additional wild and cultivated materials are needed to cover the full spectrum of genetic diversity in the genus (Simpson, 1991; Williams, 2001). The additional materials can be obtained only through exchange with foreign genebanks and research institutions or by conducting new plant explorations. Most of the existing accessions in the National Plant Germplasm System (NPGS) and other Arachis germplasm collections were obtained when genetic resources were considered the common heritage of humankind and available without restrictions. Since the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) entered into force, the free and open access to genetic resources from other countries has largely become a thing of the past.

3.8.5 USDA Plant Explorations Under the New Regulations In this constantly changing environment of regulation of access to genetic resources, the Plant Exchange Office (PEO) of USDA-ARS, in collaboration with the International Plant Genetic Resources Institute (IPGRI), is working to develop models that will facilitate continued foreign access to germplasm, particularly access associated with plant explorations supported by the USDA (Williams, 1998). A proactive approach is being taken to establish favorable precedents that demonstrate the mutual benefits of collaborative germplasm conservation effortsand show how these can be achieved within the framework of the new legal regime. Many germplasm donor countries believe that there has been an inequitable distribution of benefits derived from plant genetic resources obtained from their countries. Monetary benefits, such as payment of royalties, are often at the center of discussions on benefit sharing, while important non-monetary in-kind benefits go unrecognized or under appreciated (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1998). Past USDA plant explorations have included non-monetary benefits to the host country such as paying the travel and equipment costs of the exploration, sharing half of the collected germplasm, preparation of herbarium specimens, and joint publication of research results. Today, additional nonmonetary benefits maybe necessary to obtain access to germplasm. The approach taken by USDA and IPGRI to benefit sharing is that the additional support contributes to conservation of plant genetic resources in the host country, preferably by strengthening the capacity of the national plant genetic resources program.

-19- 4 References

Anderson, W.F., C.C. Holbrook, and A.K. Culbreath. 1996. Screening the peanut core collection for resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus. Peanut Sci. 23:57-61. Arus, P., and J. Moreno-Gonzalez. 1993. Marker-assisted selection, pp. 314-331. In M. D. Hayward,N. O. Bosemark, and I. Romagosa (eds.) Plant Breeding: Principles and Prospects. Champman and Hall, London. Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies, 2003. Bent, A.F., and I. Yu. 1999. Applications of molecular biology to plant disease and insect resistance. Adv. Agron. 66:251-298. Brar, G.S., B.A. Cohen, C.L. Vick, and G.W. Johnson. 1994. Recovery of transgenic peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) plants from elite cultivars utilizing ACCELL technology. Plant J. 5:745-753. Brown, A.H.D. 1988. The case for core collections, pp. 136-156. In A. H. D. Brown, 0. H. Comision del Acuerdo de Cartegena. 1996. Decision 391: Regimen Comm sobre Acceso alas Recursos Genotieos. Gaceta Oficial,aiio XII, no. 213, Lima, 17 July. Convention on Biological Diversity. 1992. International Legal Materials 31: 822-841. Brown, A.H.D. 1989. Core collections: A practical approach to genetic resource management. Genome 31:818-824. Buchanan, G.A., Murray, D.S. and Hauser, E.W. 1982. Weeds and their control in peanuts. In: eds. H.E. Pattee and C.T. Young, Peanut Science and Technology, Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Inc., Yoakum, TX, pp. 206-249. Burks, W., H.A. Sampson, and G. Bannon. 1998. Peanut allergens. Allergy 53:727-730. Carley, D.H. and Fletcher, S.M. 1995. An overview of world peanut markets, In: eds. H.E. Pattee and H.T. Stalker, Advances in Peanut Science, Am. Peanut Res. And Educ. Socl, Inc., Stillwater, OK, pp. 554-557. Changping, Chen, Stanley M. Fletcher, and Dale H. Carley. July, 1997. Competitiveness of Peanuts: United States vs. China. University of Georgia, Research Bulletin, N. 430. Cheng, M., R.L. Jarret, Z. Li, A. Xing, and J.W. Demski. 1996. Production of fertile transgenic peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) plants using Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Cell Rep. 15:653-657. Cheng, M., R.L. Janet, Z. Li, and J.W. Demski. 1997. Expression and inheritance of foreign genes in transgenic peanut plants generated by Agrobacterium mediated transformation. Plant Cell Rep. 16:541-544. Cockerham, C.C. 1983. Covariances of relatives from self-fertilization. Crop Sci. 23:117-118. Culbreath, A.K., J.W. Todd, J.W. Demski, and J.R. Chamberlin. 1992. Disease progress of spotted wilt in peanut cultivars Florunner and Southern Runner. Phytopathology 82:766-771. Eapen, S., and L. George. 1994. Agrobacterium tumefaciens mediated gene transfer in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Plant Cell Rep. 13:582-586. Economic Research Service (ERS). 2001. Production, Supply, and Distribution (PS&D) database, USDA. Ferguson, M.E., M.D. Burow, S.R. Schulze, P.J. Bramel, A.H. Paterson, S. Kresovich, and S. Mitchell. 2004. Microsatellite identification and characterization in peanut (A. hypogaea

-20- L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 108:1064-1070. Foreign Agricultural Service (FAS). June, 2000. Oilseeds Markets and Trade. Cotton, oilseeds, tobacco and seeds division. USDA. Franke, M.D., T.B. Brenneman, and C.C. Holbrook. 1999. Identification of resistance to Rhizoctonia limb rot in a core collection of peanut germplasm. Plant Dis. 83:944-948. Frankel, O.H. 1984. Genetic perspectives of germplasm conservation, pp. 161-170. In W. K. Arber, K. Llimensee, W. J. Peacock, and P. Starlinger (eds.) Genetic Manipulation: Impact on Man and Society. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge. Frankel, O.H., and A. H. D. Brown. 1984. Current plant genetic resources-A critical appraisal, p. 1-13. In Genetics: New Frontiers, Vol. IV. Oxford & IBH Publ. Co., New Delhi. Gregory, M. P., and W.C. Gregory. 1979. Exotic germplasm of Arachis L. interspecific hybrids. J. Hered. 70:185-193. Guarino, L., A. Jarvis, R.J. Hijmans, and N. Masted. 2001. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and the conservation and use of plant genetic resources. In J. Engels, V. Ramanatha Rao, A. Brown, and M. Jackson (eds.) Managing Plant Genetic Diversity. Proc. Int. Conf. on Science and Technology for Managing Plant Genetic Diversity in the 21st Century (SAT21), Kuala Lumpur, , 12-16 June 2000. CAB Int., Wellesbourne, England. Halward, T., T. Stalker, E. LaRue, and G. Kochert. 1992. Use of single primer DNA amplifications in genetic studies of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Plant Mol. Biol. 18:315- 325. Hammon, E.G., D. Duvick, T. Wang, H. Dodo, and R. N. Pittman. 1997. Survey of fatty acid composition of peanut (Arachis hypogaea ) germplasm and characterization of their epoxyand eicosenoic acids. J. Amer. Oil Chem. Soc. 74:1235-1239. Hammons, R.O. 1970. Registration of Spancross peanut. Crop Sci. 10:459. Hammons, R.O. 1972. Peanuts, pp. 217-223, 252. In Genetic Vulnerability of Major Crop Plants. NAS-NRC Agric. Board, Washington, DC. Hammons, R.O. 1976. Peanuts: Genetic vulnerability and breeding strategy. Crop Sci. 16:527-530. He, G., and C. S. Prakash. 1997. Identification of polymorphic DNA markers in cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Euphytica 97:143-149. He, Guohao, Ronghua Meng, Melanie Newman, Guoqing Gao, Roy N. Pittman, and C.S. Prakash. 2003. Microsatellites as DNA markers in cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). BMC Plant Biology 3:3. Higgins, B.B. 1951. Origin and early history of the peanut. In: The Peanut - The Unpredictable Legume, Nat. Fert. Assoc., Washington, pp. 18-27. Hilder, V.A., and D. Boulter. 1999. Genetic engineering of crop plants for insect resistance - A critical review. Crop Protect. 18:177-191. Hirschberg, J. 1999. Production of high-value compounds: Carotenoids and vitamin E. Curr. Opin. Biotech. 10:186-191. Holbrook, C.C. 1997. The U. S. germplasm collection of Arachis hypogaea : How much diversity do we have? Proc. Amer. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 29:64 (abstr.). Holbrook, C.C., and T.G. Isleib. 2001. Geographical distribution of genetic diversity in Arachis hypogaea. Peanut Sci. 28:81-85.

-21- Holbrook, C.C., and W.F. Anderson. 1993. Minimum descriptor information on a core collection of peanut. Agron. Abstr. 1993:189 (abstr.). Holbrook, C.C., and W.F. Anderson. 1995. Evaluation of a core collection to identify resistance to late leafspot in peanut. Crop Sci. 35:1700-1702. Holbrook, C.C., D.M. Wilson, and M.E. Matheron. 1997. Results from screening the peanut core collection for resistance to preharvest aflatoxin contamination. Proc. USDA Aflatoxin Elimination Workshop. Washington, p. 64 (abstr.). Holbrook, C.C., J. Bruniard, K.M. Moore, and D.A. Knauft. 1998. Evaluation of the peanut core collection for oil content. Agron. Abst. 1998:159 (abstr.). Holbrook, C.C., M.G. Stephenson, and A.W. Johnson. 2000a. Level and geographical distribution of resistance to Meloidogyne arenaria in the U.S. germplasm collection of peanut. Crop Sci. 40:11681171. Holbrook, C.C., P. Timper, and H.Q. Xue. 2000b. Evaluation of the core collection approach for identifying resistance to Meloidogyne arenaria in peanut. Crop Sci. 40:1172-1175. Holbrook, C.C., W.F. Anderson, and R.N. Pittman. 1993. Selection of a core collection from the U.S. germplasm collection of peanut. Crop Sci. 33:859-861. Hopkins, M.S., A.M. Casa, T. Wang, S.E. Mitchell, R.E. Dean, G. . Kochert, and S. Kresovich. 1999. Discovery and characterization of polymorphic simple sequence repeats (SSRs) in cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Crop Sci. 39:1243-1247. IBPGR, and ICRISAT. 1992. Descriptors for Groundnut. Int. Board of Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, Italy, and ICRISAT, Patancheru, A.P., India. Isleib , T.G., and J.C. Wynne. 1992. Use of plant introductions in peanut improvement, pp. 75-116. In H. L. Shands and L. E. Weisner (eds.) Use of Plant Introductions in Cultivar Development, Part 2. Crop Sci. Soc. Amer. Spec. Pub. No. 20, Madison, WI. Isleib, T.G., C.C. Holbrook, and D.W. Gorbet. 2001. Use of plant introductions in peanut cultivar development. Peanut Sci. 28: 96-113. Isleib, T.G., J.C. Wynne, and S.N. Nigam. 1994. Groundnut breeding, pp. 552-623. In J. Smartt(ed.) The Groundnut Crop: A Scientific Basis for Improvement. Chapman & Hall, London. Isleib, T.G., M.K. Beute, P.W. Rice, and J.E. Hollowell. 1995. Screening of the peanut corecollection for resistance to Cylindrocladium black rot and early leaf spot. Proc. Amer. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc. 27:25 (abstr.). Jones, P.G., and A. Gladkov. 1999. Floramap, Vers. 1. A Computer Tool for Predicting the Distribution of Plants and Other Organisms in the Wild. CD-ROM and Manual. Centro Mt. de Agricultura Tropical, Cali, Colombia. Jordan, D.L., R.L. Brandenburg, J.E. Bailey, P.D. Johnson, B.M. Royal, and V.L. Curtis. 1999. Cost effectiveness of pest management strategies in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) grown in North Carolina. Peanut Sci. 26:85-94. Jung, S., D. Swift, E. Sengoku, M. Patel, F. Teule, G. Powell, K. Moore, and A. Abbott. 2000. The high oleate trait in the cultivated peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). I. Isolation and characterization of two genes encoding microsomal oleoyl-PC desaturases. Mol. Gen. Genet. 263:796-805. Kempthorne, O. 1969. An introduction to genetic statistics. Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, IA.

-22- Kishore, G.M., S.R. Padgette, and R.T. Fraley. 1992. History of herbicide-tolerant crops, methods of development and current state of the art - emphasis on glyphosate tolerance. Weed Technol. 6:626-634. Knauft, D.A., and D.W. Gorbet. 1989. Genetic diversity among peanut cultivars. Crop Sci. 29:1417-1422. Knauft, D.A. and Ozias-Akins, P., 1995. Recent methodologies for germplasm enhancement and breeding. In: eds. H.E. Pattee and H.T. Stalker, Advances in Peanut Science, Am. Peanut Res. and Educ. Soc., Inc., Stillwater, OK, pp. 54-94. Kochert, G., T.M. Halward, W.D. Branch, and C.E. Simpson. 1991. RFLP variability in peanut cultivars and wild species. Theor. Appl. Genet. 81:565-570. Kochert, G.D., T. Halward, and H.T. Stalker. 1996. Genetic variation in peanut and its implications in plant breeding, pp. 19-30. In B. Pickersgill and J. M. Lock (eds.) Advances in Legume Science 8: Legumes of Economic Importance. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. Krapovickas, A. and Gregory, W.C. 1994. Taxonomia del genera Arachis (Leguminosae). Bonplandia. 8:1-186. Lamb, M.C. and blankenship, P.D. 1996. Status of the United States peanut industry. In: United States Peanut Industry Revitalization Project, National Peanut Council, Arlington, VA, pp. 2-8. Li, Z., R.L. Janet, and J.W. Demski. 1997. Engineered resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus in transgenic peanut expressing the viral nucleocapsid gene. Transgen. Res. 6:297-305. Livingstone, D.M., and R.G. Birch. 1999. Efficient transformation and regeneration of diverse cultivars of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) by particle bombardment into embryogenic callus produced from mature seeds. Molec. Breed. 5:43-51. Magbanua, Z.V., H.D. Wilde, J.K. Roberts, K. Chowdhury, J. Abad, J.W. Moyer, H.Y. Wetzstein, and W.A. Parrott. 2000. Field resistance to tomato spotted wilt virus in transgenic peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) expressing an antisense nucleocapsid gene sequence. Molec. Breed.6:227-236. Malécot, G. 1948. Les mathématiques de l'hérédité. Masson et Cie, Paris. McKently, A.H., G.A. Moore, H. Doostdar, and R.P. Niedz. 1995. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) embryo axes and the development of transgenic plants. Plant Cell Rep. 14:699-703. Melchers, L.S., and M.H. Stuiver. 2000. Novel genes for disease resistance breeding. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 3:147-152. Ozias-Akins, P., J.A. Schnall, W.F. Anderson, C. Singsit, T.E. Clemente, M.J. Adang, and A.K. Weissinger. 1993. Regeneration of transgenic peanut plants from stably transformed embryogenic callus. Plant Sci. 93:185-194. Paik-Ro, O. G., R. L. Smith, and D. A. Knauft. 1992. Restriction fragment length polymorphism evaluation of six peanut species within the Arachis section. Theor. Appl. Genet. 84:201-208. Pittman, R. N. 1995. United States peanut descriptors. USDA-ARS132. U.S. Gov. Print. Ofc., Washington, DC. Porter, D.M., Smith, D.H. and Rodriguez-Kabana, R. 1982. Peanut Diseases. In: eds. H.E. Pattee and C.T. Young, Peanut Science and Technology, Am. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Inc.,

-23- Yoakum, TX, pp. 326û410. Sanders, T.H., A.M. Schubert, and H.E. Pattee. 1982. Maturity methodology and postharvest physiology, pp. 624-654. In H. E. Pattee and C. T. Young (eds.) Peanut Science and Technology. Amer. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Inc. Yoakum, TX. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. 1998. Sharing the Non-Monetary Benefits of Agricultural Biodiversity. UNEP/ CBD/COP/4/Inf. 24, CBD Secretariat, Montreal. Shands, H. L., and R. Bertram. 2000. Access to plant germplasm in the CGIAR centers: An update. Crop Science-Soil Science-Agron. News, Madison, WI, March, p. 8. Sharma, K.K., and V. Anjaiah. 2000. An efficient method for the production of transgenic plants of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) through Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated genetic transformation. Plant Sci. 159:7-19. Simpson, C.E. and O.D. Smith. 1975. Registration of Tamnut 74 peanut. Crop Sci. 15:603-604. Simpson, C.E. 1991. Pathways for introgression of pest resistance into Arachis hypogaea L. Peanut Sci. 18:22-26. Simpson, C.E., D.L. Higgins, G.D. Thomas, and E.R. Howard. 1992. Catalog of passport data and minimum descriptors of Arachis hypogaea L. germplasm collected in South America 1977-1986. Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. MP-1737. Simpson, C.E., and J.L. Starr. 2001. Registration of COAN peanut. Crop Sci. 41:918. Simpson, C.E., J.L. Starr, S.C. Nelson, K.E. Woodard, and O.D. Smith. 1993. Registration of TxAG-6 and TxAG-7 peanut germplasm. Crop Sci. 33:1418. Singh, A.K., and C.E. Simpson. 1994. Biosystematics and genetic resources, pp. 96-137. In J. Smartt (ed.) The Groundnut Crop: A Scientific Basis for Improvement. Chapman & Hall, London. Singsit, C., M.J. Adang, R.E. Lynch, W.F. Anderson, A. Wang, G. Cardineau, and P. Ozias-Akins. 1997. Expression of a Bacillus thuringiensis crylA(c) gene in transgenic peanut plants and its efficacy against lesser cornstalk borer. Transgen. Res. 6:169-176. Skinner, Robert A. 1999. Issues Facing the U.S. Peanut Industry During the Seattle Round of the World Trade Organization. In: Oil Crops Situation and Outlook/OCS-1999/October 1999 (Special Article). Skully, David. 1999. U.S. Tariff-Rate Quotas for Peanuts. In: Oil Crops Situation and Outlook/OCS-1999/October 1999 (Special Article). St. Martin, S.K. 1982. Effective population size for the improvement program in maturity groups 00 to IV. Crop Sci. 22: 151-152. Stalker, H.T., and M.K. Beute. 1993. Registration of four leaf spot resistant peanut germplasm lines. Crop Sci. 33:1117. Stalker, H.T., and C.E. Simpson. 1995. Genetic resources in Arachis, pp. 14-53. In H. E. Pattee and H. T. Stalker (eds.) Advances in Peanut Science. Amer. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Stillwater, OK. Subrahmanyam, P., McDonald, D. and Hammons, R.O. 1984. Rust. In: eds. D.M. Porter, D.H. Smith and R. Rodreiguez-Kabana, Compendium of Peanut Diseases, Am. Phytopathologyical Soc. St. Paul, MN, pp. 7-9. Tanksley, S.D. 1983. Molecular markers in plant breeding. Plant Molec. Biol. Rep. 1:3-8.

-24- USDA. 1900. Foreign Seeds and Plants Collected in Austria, Italy, and Egypt by the Honorable Barbour Lathrop and Mr. David G. Fairchild for the Section of Seed and Plant Introduction.USDA Div. of Botany Inventory No. 6. U.S. Gov. Print. Office, Washington, DC. USDA. 1901. Seed and Plants Imported for Distribution in Cooperation with the Agricultural Experiment Stations (Inventory No. 8; Nos. 3401-4350. Sect. Seed and Plant Intro. U.S. Gov.Print. Office, Washington, DC. USDA. 1992. pcGRIN. Germplasm resource information network. Data query system for the PC.ARS-108. U.S. Govt. Print. Office, Washington, DC. Vrain, T.C. 1999. Engineering natural and synthetic resistance for nematode management. J. Nematol. 31:424-236. Wang, A., H. Fan., C. Singsit, and P. Ozias-Akins. 1998. Transformation of peanut with a soybean vspB promoter-uidA chimeric gene. I. Optimization of a transformation system and analysis of GUS expression in primary transgenic tissues and plants. Physiol. Plant. 102:38-48. Weeden, N.F. 1989. Applications of isozymes in plant breeding, pp. 11-54. In J. Janick (ed.) PlantBreeding Reviews. Vol. B. Timber Press, Portland, OR. Wilcut. J.W., York, A.C., Grichar, W.J. and Wehtje, G.R 1995. The biology and management of weeds in peanut (Arachis hypogaea), pp. 207-244. In H. E. Pattee and H. T. Stalker (eds.) Advances in Peanut Science. Amer. Peanut Res. Educ. Soc., Stillwater, OK. Williams, D.E. 2001. New directions for collecting and conserving cultivated peanut diversity. Peanut Sci. 28:136-141. Williams, K.A., and D.E. Williams. 2001. Evolving political issues affecting international exchange of Arachis genetic resources. Peanut Sci. 28:132-135. Williams, K.A. 1998. Plant Exchange Office leads way in establishing non-monetary benefit-sharing regimes. Diversity 14: 23-24. Wynne, J.C., and W.C. Gregory. 1981. Peanut breeding, pp. 39-72. In N. C. Brady (ed.)Advances in Agronomy. Vol. 34. Academic Press, New York. Wynne, J.C., M.K. Buete, and S.N. Nigam. 1991. Breeding for disease resistance in peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Ann. Rev. Phytopath. 29:270-303. Yang, H., C. Singsit, A. Wang, D. Gonsalves, and P. Ozias-Akins. 1998. Transgenic peanut plants containing a nucleocapsid protein gene of tomato spotted wilt virus show divergent levels of gene expression. Plant Cell Rep. 17:693-699.

-25- 6 Appendix

-26- Table 1. Distribution of Certified seed acreage of peanuts in the USA in 2003.

Production area Southeast Southwest Virginia- (GA, Fl, (TX, OK, North USA Al, SC) NM) Carolina Certified As part of As part of Certified As part of As part of Certified As part of As part of Certified As part of As part of seed marker production seed marker production seed marker production seed marker production Cultivar area* type area area type area area type area area type area acres % % acres % % acres % % acres % %

Runner market type 126914 100.0 78.8 99075 100.0 98.9 27839 100.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 Georgia Green 79384 62.5 49.3 79384 80.1 79.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 Flavor Runner 458 13542 10.7 8.4 13542 48.6 36.0 C-99R 8691 6.8 5.4 8691 8.8 8.7 Tamrun 96 6424 5.1 4.0 6424 23.1 17.1 Tamrun OL 01 5045 4.0 3.1 5045 18.1 13.4 ANorden 2932 2.3 1.8 2932 3.0 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 Georgia-02C 2788 2.2 1.7 2788 2.8 2.8 Virugard 2244 1.8 1.4 1634 1.6 1.6 610 2.2 1.6 AgraTech AT 201 1209 1.0 0.8 1209 1.2 1.2 DP1 1151 0.9 0.7 1151 1.2 1.1 AgraTech AT 1-1 1029 0.8 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1029 3.7 2.7 Okrun 710 0.6 0.4 710 2.6 1.9 AgraTech AT 108 479 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 479 1.7 1.3 Carver 477 0.4 0.3 477 0.5 0.5 ANDRU II 450 0.4 0.3 450 0.5 0.4 SunOleic 97R 145 0.1 0.1 145 0.1 0.1 Southern Runner 90 0.1 0.1 90 0.1 0.1 Hull 80 0.1 0.0 80 0.1 0.1 AP-3 44 0.0 0.0 44 0.0 0.0 Florunner 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Georgia Hi-O/L 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Georgia 01R 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 GP-1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

-27- NemaTam 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Tamrun OL 02 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Virginia market type 28925 100.0 18.0 1130 100.0 1.1 4620 100.0 12.3 23175 100.0 100.0 NC-V 11 5710 19.7 3.5 898 79.5 0.9 4812 20.8 20.8 Perry 5031 17.4 3.1 232 20.5 0.2 4799 20.7 20.7 Gregory 4493 15.5 2.8 4493 19.4 19.4 NC 12C 4011 13.9 2.5 4011 17.3 17.3 VA 98R 3671 12.7 2.3 3671 15.8 15.8 NC 7 2588 8.9 1.6 2588 56.0 6.9 0H 0.0 0.0 AgraTech VC-2 1347 4.7 0.8 0H 0.0 0.0 1183 25.6 3.1 164 0.7 0.7 Wilson 859 3.0 0.5 859 3.7 3.7 Jupiter 849 2.9 0.5 849 18.4 2.3

Spanish market type 3696 100.0 2.3 0 0.0 3696 100.0 9.8 0 0.0 Tamspan 90 2327 63.0 1.4 2327 63.0 6.2 OLin 824 22.3 0.5 824 22.3 2.2 Spanco 545 14.7 0.3 545 14.7 1.4 Valencia market type 1478 100.0 0.9 19 100.0 0.0 1459 100.0 3.9 0 0.0 New Mexico Valencia A 644 43.6 0.4 644 44.1 1.7 Proprietary 524 35.5 0.3 524 35.9 1.4 New Mexico Valencia C 171 11.6 0.1 171 11.7 0.5 Valencia 60 4.1 0.0 60 4.1 0.2 Valencia 102 60 4.1 0.0 60 4.1 0.2 Georgia Valencia 19 1.3 0.0 19 100.0 0.0 Total 161013 100.0 100224 62.2 37614 23.4 23175 14.4

* Acreage data from Association of Official Seed Certifying Agencies (AOSCA), 2003.

-28- Table 2. Weighted average coancestries among and within production regions.

Production region Southeast Southwest Virginia-Carolina Southeast 0.716 0.276 0.110 Southwest – 0.396 0.120 Virginia-Carolina – – 0.412

Table 3. Weighted average coancestries among and within market types.

Market type Runner Virginia Spanish Valencia Runner 0.597 0.111 0.010 0.001 Virginia – 0.375 0.005 0.001 Spanish – – 0.722 0.172 Valencia – – – 0.346

-29- Table 4. Possible high impact pathogens on peanuts.

Fungal Pathogens Code U.S. Alternaria arachidis (Alternaria Leaf Spot) 1 N Colletotrichum arachidis (Anthracnose) 1 Aspergillus niger (Aspergillus Crown Rot) 2 Thielaviopsis basicola (Black Hull) 2 Botrytis cinerea (Botrytis Blight) 1 Macrophomina phaseolina (Charcoal Rot) 1 Choanephora sp. (Choanephora Leaf Spot) 1 N Cylindrocladium crotalariae (Cylindrocladium Black Rot) 3 Diplodia gossypina (Diplodia Collar Rot) 1 Cercospora arachidicola (Early Leaf Spot) 3 Cercosporidium personatum (Late Leaf Spot) 3 Fusarium sp. (Fusarium Diseases) 2 Stemphylium botryosum (Melanosis) 1 Myrothecium roridum (Myrothecium Leaf Blight) 1 N Neocosmospora vasinfecta (Neocosmospora Foot Rot) 1 N Olpidium brassicae (Olpidium Root Discoloration) 1 Pythium myriotylum, Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium solani (Peanut Pod Rot Complex) 3 Leptosphaerulina crassiasca (Pepper Spot and Leaf Scorch) 2 Pestalotiopsis arachidis (Pestalotiopsis Leaf Spot) 1 N Phanerochaete omnivore 1 Phomopsis sojae (Phomopsis Blight) 1 Phyllosticta arachidis-hypogaea (Phyllosticta Leaf Spot) 1 Phymatotrichum omnivorum (Phymatotrichum Root Rot) 1 Oidium arachidis (Powdery Mildew) 1 N Pythium sp. (Pythium Diseases) 3 Rhizoctonia sp. (Rhizoctonia Disease) 3 Puccinia arachidis (Rust) 2 Sphaceloma arachidis (Scab) 1 N Sclerotinia minor (Sclerotinia Blight) 3 Sclerotium rolfsii (Southern Blight or Stem Rot) 3 Mucor pusillus, Humiscola lanuginosa, Talaromyces dupontii, Thermoascus aurantiacus, Malbranchea pulchella, Aspergillus fumigatus, Thielavia albomyces, Sporotrichum sp., and Chaetomium sp. (Thermophilic Fungi) 1 Verticillium dahliae (Verticillium Wilt) 2 Phoma arachidicola (Web Blotch) 3 Aspergillus flavus, A. parasiticus (Yellow Mold and Aflatoxin) 3 Cristulariella moricola (Zonate Leaf Spot) 1 Bacterial Pathogens

-30- Pseudomonas sp. (Bacterial Leaf Spot) 1 N Pseudomonas solanacearum (Bacterial Wilt) 1 Nematodes Meloidogyne sp. (Root-Knot Nematodes) 3 Pratylenchus brachyurus (Root-Lesion Nematodes) 2 Belonolaimus gracilis (Sting Nematodes) 2 Criconemella ornate (Ring Nematodes) 1 Ditylenchus africanus (Peanut Pod Nematodes) 1 N Viral Pathogens Tomato Spotted Wilt 3 Peanut Clump 2 N Indian Peanut Clump 2 N Groundnut Rosette 3 Peanut Mottle 1 Peanut Stripe 1 Peanut Stunt 1 Mild Mottle 2 N Cucumber Mosaic 3 N Peanut Chlorotic Streak 1 N Phytoplasmas Witches'-Broom 1 N

-31- Table 5. Possible high impact insects on peanuts.

Life Plant part Entry Establishment Spread Economic Common name Scientific name Primary host Risk form affected potential potential potential impact

Khapra beetle Btle Trogoderma granarium Stored products Seed, dried Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium products

Tobacco thrips Thri Frankliniella fusca Foliage & Flowers Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Giant African snail Snail Achatina achatina Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Giant East African snail Snail Achatina fulica Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Knotgrass Moth Acronicta rumicis Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Otidid fly Diptera Acrosticta apicalis peanut, cotton, Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low aubergine, sweet potato.

Leaf-curling moth, Moth privatana Foliar Medium Medium Medium Low Low apple

Striped wireworm Btle Agriotes lineatus Cotyledons (seed; Medium Medium Medium Low Low leaves, root and

Wheat wireworm Btle Agriotes mancus Cotyledons (seed; Medium Medium Medium Low Low leaves, root and

Cutworm Moth Agrotis repleta Seedlings Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Turnip moth Moth Agrotis segetum Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low

-32- Indian cotton jassid Bug Amrasca biguttula Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low biguttula

Hairy caterpillar Moth Amsacta albistriga Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Red tiger moth Moth Amsacta lactinea Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Tiger moth Moth Amsacta moorei Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Gelechiid moth Moth ephippias Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Oriental beetle Btle Anomala cuprea Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Soybean beetle Btle Anomala rufocuprea Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Cockhafer of the plains Btle Anomala varians Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Giant coreid bug Bug Anoplocnemis curvipes Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Coreid bug Bug Anoplocnemis phasiana Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Soybean or Velvet Moth Anticarsia gemmatalis cowpea, soybean, pigeon Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low bean caterpillar , peanut, beans.

Peanut leafminer Moth Aproaerema modicella peanut, soybean. Foliage Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Soybean leafroller Moth Archips micaceanus coffee, soyabean, Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low breadfruit, peanut.

-33- Leafroller Moth Archips tabescens peanut, jackfruit. Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Arionid slug Slug Arion circumscriptus Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Arionid slug Slug Arion distinctus Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Arionid slug Slug Arion fasciatus Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Arionid slug Slug Arion lusitanicus Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Arionid slug Slug Arion subfuscus Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Peanut leafminer Moth Biloba subsecivella peanut, soybean. Foliage Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Boettgerillid slug Slug Boettgerilla patens Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Garden springtail Springt Bourletiella hortensis Seedlings Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Bush snail Snail Bradybaena ravida Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Onion thrips Thri Caliothrips indicus onions, garlic, leek, etc., Foliage, fLowers Medium Medium Medium Low Low peanut, legumes,

Seed-beetle (Bruchid) Btle Calobruchus analis peanut, chickpea, faba, Pods & seed Medium Medium Medium Low Low field pea, lentil Peanut bruchid Btle Caryedon serratus peanut, Stored products Pods & seed Medium Medium Medium Low Low (dried stored products).

Cicadellid Bug Chlorotettix fraterculus peanut, yam, grasses. Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low

-34- Gulf wireworm Btle Conoderus amplicollis Seedlings Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Wireworm Btle Conoderus vespertinus Seedlings Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Curculionid Btle Corigetus sieversi peanut, mora, soyabean. Whole plant Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Cotton lacebug Bug Corythuca gossypii Annona, Araceae, Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low peanut, , bell pepper, papaw, okra, cassava, banana, beans, castor bean, sugarcane, aubergine. Mirid Bug Creontiades pallidifer peanut, black gram. Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Tea flush worm Cricula trifenestrata Foliage Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Limacid slug Slug Deroceras laeve Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Southern corn Btle Diabrotica Medium Medium Medium Low Low rootworm undecimpunctata

Earwigs (World wide) Ewig Doru, Euborellia, Seedlings Medium Medium Medium Low Low Various species Labidura & Nala spp.

Oriental army ant Ant Dorylus orientalis Whole plant Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Sharp-headed Bug Draeculacephala Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low leafhopper clypeata

-35- lesser corn stalk borer Moth Elasmopalpus maize, sugarcane, rice, Whole plant Medium Medium Medium Low Low lignosellus Sorghum, peanut, pigeon pea, beans, yellow nutsedge, , cotton, kidney bean, soyabean, strawberry, turnip, cowpea, wheats.

Potato leafhopper Bug Empoasca fabae Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Cicadellid Bug Empoasca kerri peanut, pigeon pea, Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low soyabean, lablab, moth beans, , black gram, castor bean, sesame, Sorghum, cowpea. Blister beetle Btle Epicauta maklini peanut Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low

FLower thrips Thri Frankliniella intonsa FLowers Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Southern false Btle Gonocephalum macleayi peanut, sorghum, Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low wireworm sunfLower, chickpea, soyabean & other legumes, wheats

Tomato budworm Moth Helicoverpa viriscens Above ground Low high high Medium Low

American cotton Moth Helicoverpa zea peanut, maize, cotton, Flowers, pods Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium bollworm Sorghum, tomato, sunflower, soybean, pigeon pea etc

-36- French escargot Snail Helix pomatia Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Harvester termite Termi Hodotermes Seedling Medium Medium Medium Low Low mossambicus

White grub Btle Holotrichia Seedling Medium Medium Medium Low Low consanguinea

White grub Btle Holotrichia morosa Seedling Medium Medium Medium Low Low

White grub Btle Holotrichia oblita Seedling Medium Medium Medium Low Low

White grub Btle Holotrichia serrata Seedling Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Tortricid Moth Homona nubiferana peanut, Cajanus, , Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low Crotalaria, Tephrosia,

Common green Bug Hortensia similis peanut, pigeon pea, Above ground Medium Medium Medium Low Low sugarcane leafhopper cucurbits, yam, soyabean, rice, beans, sugarcane, maize, grasses,tomato. Areca white grub Btle Leucopholis lepidophora Seedling Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Achatinid snail Snail Limacolaria Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low martensiana

Limacid slug Slug Limacus pseudoflavus Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

-37- Vegetable leaf miner Fly Liriomyza sativae tomato, cruciferous Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low crops, celery, aubergine, lucerne, beans, Solanaceae, , bell pepper, cucurbits, lettuce, kidney bean, potato, maize, ornamental gourd, okra, pea, kale, turnip, tobacco, cotton, radish, spinach, watermelon, sugarbeet, peppers, clovers, onions, garlic, leek, etc., peanut, pigeon pea, carrot, pea, cowpea, Cucurbita, melon, cucumber, giant pumpkin, sweet pea, basil. American serpentine Fly Liriomyza trifolii beans Foliage Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium leafminer

Nicaraguan grain Btle Lophocateres pusillus peanut, rice, cassava, Dried seed & pods Low Medium Medium Low Low beetle Stored products (dried stored products).

Beet webworm Moth Loxostege sticticalis Foliage Low Medium Medium Low Low

Smaller velvet chafer Btle Maladera orientalis maize, wheats, tobacco, Foliage Low Medium Medium Low Low peanut, beans.

Kalotermitid Termi Microtermes obesi wheats, jutes, sugarcane, Whole plant Low Medium Medium Low Low coconut, peanut.

-38- Noctuid Moth Mocis undata , , peanut, Foliage Low Medium Medium Low Low velvetbeans, soyabean, hoang pea. Chrysomelid Btle Monolepta signata tobacco, peanut, beans, Foliage Low Medium Medium Low Low potato.

Yellow-banded Btle Mylabris phalerata peanut, hemp, pigeon Foliage Low Medium Medium Low Low blister beetle pea.

Scarabaeid Btle Neodontocnemis peanut Seedling Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium formosana

Tetranychid Mite Oligonychus biharensis peanut, coconut, Foliage Low Medium Medium Low Low Eucalyptus, Leucaena, cassava, banana, kidney bean, cowpea, okra, roses. Soybean webworm Moth indicata Foliage Low Medium Medium Low Low

Tussock moth Moth Orgyia turbata Foliage Low Medium Medium Low Low

Pyralid Moth Ostrinia scapulalis peanut, maize. Pods, Flowers Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

Spanish edible snail Snail Otala lactea Whole Low Medium Medium Low Low

White grubs Btle Phyllophaga Seedling Low Medium Medium Low Low

White grub Btle Polyphylla laticollis peanut Seedling Low Medium Medium Low Low (Scarabaeid)

Black vine thrips Thri Retithrips syriacus Above ground Low Medium Medium Low Low

-39- Lesser grain borer Btle Rhizopertha dominica Stored grain, flour Stored grain Low Medium Medium Low Low

Bean slug Slug Sarasinula plebeia Whole Low Medium Medium Low Low

Pea leaf weevil Btle Sitona lineatus Lucerne, pea, broad Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low (Britain) bean, black medic, kidney beans, winter Spotted bean weevil Btle Sitona macularius Chickpea, lentil, pea, Pods Low Medium Medium m Low vetch & broad bean

Common hairy Moth Spilarctia obliqua Foliage Low Medium Medium m Low caterpillar

Costa Rican armyworm Moth Spodoptera albula tomato, soyabean, Seedlings Medium Medium Medium Low Low maize, Sorghum, pea, cotton, onions, garlic, leek, etc., peanut, bell pepper, cruciferous crops, cucurbits, cassava, banana, tobacco, sweet potato, sugarbeet. Southern armyworm Moth Spodoptera eridania Seedlings Medium Medium Medium Low Low Fall armyworm Moth Spodoptera frugiperda Seedlings Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Cotton leafworm Moth Spodoptera littoralis Seedlings Medium Medium Medium Low Low

YelLow striped Moth Spodoptera ornithogalli Seedlings Medium Medium Medium Low Low armyworm

Peanut budworm Moth Stegasta bosqueella peanut Flowers / pods Medium Medium Medium Medium Medium

-40- Budapest slug Slug Tandonia budapestensis Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Japanese ant Ant Tetramorium peanut, soyabean, Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low bicarinatum aubergine, cowpea.

Canadian spider mite Mite Tetranychus canadensis Leaves Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Pierce’s spider mite Mite Tetranychus piercei peanut, papaw, castor Leaves Medium Medium Medium Low Low bean, kidney bean, banana, Polygala paniculata, Butterfly-pea, African oil palm, sweet potato, plants of the palm family, Ageratum. Truncate spider mite Mite Tetranychus truncatus castor bean,cassava, Leaves Low Medium Medium Low Low maize, cotton, aubergine, peanut, mora, African oil palm, carrot, melon, beans. Sweet cherry spider Mite Tetranychus viennensis peanut, cotton, apple, Leaves Low Medium Medium Low Low mite apricot, peach, oaks.

Field thrips Thri Thrips angusticeps Leaves Low Medium Medium Low Low

Cabbage looper Moth Trichoplusia ni Foliage Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Tenebrionid Btle Ulomoides dermestoidespeanut, rice, mung bean, Seedlings Medium Medium Medium Low Low sorghum, wheat, maize.

Vaginulid slug Slug Veronicella moreleti Whole Medium Medium Medium Low Low

Life forms: Ant = Ants (Hymenoptera); Btle = Bettles (weevils etc.) (Coleoptera); Bug = Stink bugs, aphids, mealybugs, scale, whie flies and

-41- Hoppers (Homoptera); Ewig = Earwigs (Dermaptera); Fly = Flies and Midges (Diptera); Mite = Mites e.g. speder and gall mites (Acari); Moth = (); Slug = (Gastropoda); Snai = Snails (Gastropoda); Termi = Termite (Isoptera); Thri = Thrips (Thysanura)

-42- Table 6. List of peanut cultivars registered with Crop Science.

Reg. No. NameGRIN Accession Id Registration Date CV-01 Florigiant PI 565445 11/01/1969 CV-02 Florunner PI 565448 11/01/1969 CV-03 Spancross PI 565449 07/01/1970 CV-04 Tifspan PI 565450 07/01/1970 CV-05 NC2 PI 565446 07/01/1970 CV-06 NC5 PI 565447 07/01/1970 CV-07 NC17 PI 565451 07/01/1970 CV-08 Virginia Bunch 67 PI 565438 07/01/1970 CV-09 Southeastern Runner 56-15 PI 565439 11/01/1970 CV-10 Virginia 56R PI 565441 11/01/1970 CV-11 Virginia 61R PI 565444 11/01/1970 CV-12 Georgia 119-20 PI 565440 03/01/1971 CV-13 Virginia 72R PI 565454 01/01/1972 CV-14 New Mexico Valencia A PI 565452 03/01/1972 CV-15 Spantex PI 565442 05/01/1972 CV-16 Starr PI 565443 05/01/1972 CV-17 NC-FLA 14 PI 565466 05/01/1974 CV-18 Altika PI 565453 03/01/1974 CV-19 Tamnut 74 PI 564855 07/01/1975 CV-20 NC6 PI 565456 03/01/1977 CV-21 Early Bunch PI 565458 09/01/1978 CV-22 NC 7 PI 565459 07/01/1979 CV-23 Toalson PI 635015 09/01/1979 CV-24 New Mexico Valencia C PI 565461 01/01/1980 CV-25 Virginia 81 Bunch PI 565474 09/01/1982 CV-26 Sunbelt Runner PI 565473 09/01/1982 CV-27 NC 8C PI 565476 01/01/1983 CV-28 Pronto PI 565475 01/01/1983 CV-29 Sunrunner PI 565433 11/01/1985 CV-30 NC 9 PI 565484 01/01/1986 CV-31 Langley PI 506237 07/01/1987 CV-32 Southern Runner PI 506419 07/01/1987 CV-33 Georgia Red PI 508278 09/01/1987 CV-34 Tamrun 88 PI 520600 01/01/1989 CV-35 Spanco PI 531500 11/01/1989 CV-36 Okrun PI 531499 11/01/1989 CV-37 ICGV 87128 PI 537112 07/01/1990

-43- CV-38 ICGS 11 PI 478788 07/01/1990 CV-39 NC 10C PI 540460 03/01/1991 CV-40 NC-V11 PI 540461 03/01/1991 CV-41 Georgia Runner PI 542960 03/01/1991 CV-42 ICGV 87141 PI 546372 07/01/1991 CV-43 ICGS 1 PI 478780 09/01/1991 CV-44 Tamspan 90 PI 550721 11/01/1991 CV-45 ICGV 87187 PI 550930 01/01/1992 CV-46 Marc I PI 552555 01/01/1992 CV-47 ICGV 87160 PI 478787 07/01/1992 CV-48 Sinkarzei PI 561673 01/01/1993 CV-49 ICGV 86590 PI 562530 03/01/1993 CV-50 VA-C 92R PI 561566 03/01/1994 CV-51 VA 93B PI 561568 07/01/1994 CV-52 Georgia Browne PI 574450 07/01/1994 CV-53 Andru 93 PI 566905 02/28/1995 CV-54 ICGV 86325 PI 590879 05/01/1996 CV-55 Georgia Green PI 587093 05/01/1996 CV-56 SunOleic 95R PI 578304 07/01/1997 CV-57 NC 12C PI 596406 11/01/1997 CV-58 Southwest Runner PI 599178 03/01/1998 CV-59 Tamrun 96 PI 601819 09/30/1998 CV-60 Georgia Bold PI 601980 05/01/1998 CV-61 ALR 2 PI 599975 11/30/1998 CV-62 Gregory PI 608666 09/01/1999 CV-63 Jeokwangtangkong PI 607913 01/01/2000 CV-64 Tamrun 98 PI 608737 05/01/2000 CV-65 SunOleic 97R PI 596800 07/01/2000 CV-66 VA 98R PI 607566 07/01/2000 CV-67 Georgia Hi-O/L PI 607836 11/01/2000 CV-68 Coan PI 610452 05/05/2001 CV-69 Georgia Valencia PI 617040 11/01/2001 CV-70 Georgia-01R PI 629027 09/01/2002 CV-71 C-99R PI 613135 11/01/2002 CV-72 Florida MDR 98 PI 607535 11/01/2002 CV-73 Perry PI 613600 03/01/2003 CV-74 NemaTAM PI 631175 07/01/2003 CV-75 OLin PI 631176 02/28/2003 CV-76 Georgia-02C PI 632380 02/28/2003 CV-77 Tamrun OL 01 PI 631177 03/31/2003

-44- CV-78 Wilson PI 631390 09/30/2003 CV-79 Georgia-03L PI 634333 01/31/2004

-45- Table 7. List of germplasm releases of peanuts registered with Crop Science.

Reg. No. NameGRIN Accession Id Registration Date GP-001 GP-NC343 PI 565465 07/01/1971 GP-002 Chico PI 565455 01/01/1975 GP-003 Aspergillus Flavus Resistant Peanut PI 544346 01/01/1975 GP-004 Rosado PI 337409 01/01/1975 GP-005 NC 10247 PI 565434 09/01/1975 GP-006 NC 10272 PI 565435 09/01/1975 GP-007 NC 15729 PI 565436 09/01/1975 GP-008 NC 15745 PI 565437 09/01/1975 GP-009 ICG 5816 PI 565460 11/01/1976 GP-010 Mani PI 109839 03/01/1980 GP-011 VGP 1 PI 565462 05/01/1980 GP-012 CBR-R1 PI 565470 11/01/1981 GP-013 CBR-R2 PI 565469 11/01/1981 GP-014 CBR-R3 PI 565468 11/01/1981 GP-015 CBR-R4 PI 565471 11/01/1981 GP-016 CBR-R5 PI 565467 11/01/1981 GP-017 CBR-R6 PI 565472 11/01/1981 GP-018 ICG 7881 PI 561676 03/01/1982 GP-019 ICG 7886 PI 561677 03/01/1982 GP-020 ICG 7887 PI 561678 03/01/1982 GP-021 ICG 7898 PI 561679 03/01/1982 GP-022 ICG 7894 PI 561680 03/01/1982 GP-023 ICG 7895 PI 561681 03/01/1982 GP-024 ICG 7896 PI 561682 03/01/1982 GP-025 ICG 7888 PI 561683 03/01/1982 GP-026 ICG 7889 PI 561684 03/01/1982 GP-027 ICG 7890 PI 561685 03/01/1982 GP-028 ICG 7893 PI 561686 03/01/1982 GP-029 ICG 7891 PI 561687 03/01/1982 GP-030 ICG 7883 PI 561688 05/01/1982 GP-031 ICG 7882 PI 561689 05/01/1982 GP-032 F334A-B-14 PI 565477 09/01/1983 GP-033 GFA-1 PI 565478 09/01/1983 GP-034 GFA-2 PI 565479 09/01/1983 GP-035 AR-1 PI 565480 09/01/1983 GP-036 AR-2 PI 565481 09/01/1983 GP-037 AR-3 PI 565482 09/01/1983

-46- GP-038 AR-4 PI 565483 09/01/1983 GP-039 Tifton-8 PI 565463 01/01/1985 GP-040 TXAG-1 NSL 199440 03/01/1986 GP-041 TXAG-2 NSL 199441 03/01/1986 GP-042 VGP 2 PI 509536 11/01/1987 GP-043 VGP 3 PI 509537 11/01/1987 GP-044 VGP 4 PI 509538 11/01/1987 GP-045 VGP 5 PI 509539 11/01/1987 GP-046 VGP 6 PI 509540 11/01/1987 GP-047 VGP 7 PI 509541 11/01/1987 GP-048 TxAG-4 PI 535816 03/01/1990 GP-049 TXAG-5 PI 535817 03/01/1990 GP-050 ICGL1 PI 544348 05/01/1991 GP-051 ICGL2 PI 544349 05/01/1991 GP-052 ICGL3 PI 544350 05/01/1991 GP-053 ICGL4 PI 544351 05/01/1991 GP-054 ICGL5 PI 544352 05/01/1991 GP-055 Convergent Peanut Early-segregating PI 542961 03/01/1991 GP-056 ICGV 87157 PI 556992 05/01/1992 GP-057 ICGV 87121 PI 478784 07/01/1992 GP-058 ICGV 86031 PI 561917 01/01/1993 GP-059 GP-NC WS1 PI 564844 09/01/1993 GP-060 GP-NC WS2 PI 564845 09/01/1993 GP-061 GP-NC WS3 PI 564846 09/01/1993 GP-062 GP-NC WS4 PI 564847 09/01/1993 GP-063 TXAG-6 PI 565287 11/01/1993 GP-064 TXAG-7 PI 565288 11/01/1993 GP-065 ICGV 86564 PI 573007 05/01/1994 GP-066 VGP 9 PI 561567 07/01/1994 GP-067 Jinpungtangkong PI 577819 03/31/1994 GP-068 ICGV-SM 83708 PI 585000 11/01/1995 GP-069 ICGV 86252 PI 585001 11/01/1995 GP-070 ICGV 86393 PI 585002 11/01/1995 GP-071 ICGV 86455 PI 585003 11/01/1995 GP-072 ICGV 86462 PI 585004 11/01/1995 GP-073 ICGV 86015 PI 585005 11/01/1995 GP-074 ICGV 88145 PI 585006 11/01/1995 GP-075 ICGV 89104 PI 585007 11/01/1995 GP-076 ICGV 86699 PI 591815 05/01/1996 GP-077 ICGV 86388 PI 593239 09/01/1996

-47- GP-078 ICGV 87165 PI 594923 05/01/1997 GP-079 ICGV 86155 PI 594969 05/01/1997 GP-080 ICGV 86156 PI 594970 05/01/1997 GP-081 ICGV 86158 PI 594971 05/01/1997 GP-082 ICGV 87378 PI 594972 05/01/1997 GP-083 ICGV 87921 PI 594973 05/01/1997 GP-084 ICGV 88438 PI 596514 11/01/1997 GP-085 ICGV 89214 PI 596515 11/01/1997 GP-086 ICGV 91098 PI 596516 11/01/1997 GP-087 ICGV 86143 PI 596359 11/01/1997 GP-088 VGP 10 PI 584772 03/01/1998 GP-089 ICGV-SM 86715 PI 598133 03/01/1998 GP-090 ICGV-SM 85048 PI 598134 03/01/1998 GP-091 ICGV-SM 83005 PI 598135 03/01/1998 GP-092 ICGV 92196 PI 599344 05/01/1998 GP-093 ICGV 92206 PI 599345 05/01/1998 GP-094 ICGV 92234 PI 599346 05/01/1998 GP-095 ICGV 92243 PI 599347 05/01/1998 GP-096 VGP 11 PI 584773 09/30/1998 GP-097 ICGV 87354 PI 568164 01/01/2001 GP-098 ICGV 91278 PI 614083 03/01/2001 GP-099 ICGV 91283 PI 614084 03/01/2001 GP-100 ICGV 91284 PI 614085 03/01/2001 GP-101 ICGV 94361 PI 614086 09/30/2000 GP-102 ICGV 93470 PI 614087 03/01/2001 GP-103 GP-NC WS 5 PI 619169 01/01/2002 GP-104 GP-NC WS 6 PI 619170 01/01/2002 GP-105 GP-NC WS 7 PI 619171 01/01/2002 GP-106 GP-NC WS 8 PI 619172 01/01/2002 GP-107 GP-NC WS 9 PI 619173 01/01/2002 GP-108 GP-NC WS 10 PI 619174 01/01/2002 GP-109 GP-NC WS 11 PI 619175 01/01/2002 GP-110 GP-NC WS 12 PI 619176 01/01/2002 GP-111 GP-NC WS 13 PI 619177 01/01/2002 GP-112 GP-NC WS 14 PI 619178 01/01/2002 GP-113 GP-NC WS 15 PI 619179 01/01/2002 GP-116 ICGV 92267 PI 630947 11/01/2002 GP-117 ICGV 93382 PI 630948 11/01/2002 GP-118 ICGV 99001 PI 631072 01/01/2003 GP-119 ICGV 99003 PI 631073 01/01/2003

-48- GP-120 ICGV 99004 PI 631074 01/01/2003 GP-121 ICGV 99005 PI 631075 01/01/2003

-49- Table 8. List of genetic stocks registered with Crop Science.

Reg. No. NameGRIN Accession Id Registration Date GS-1 ICGL 6 PI 561916 01/01/1993 GS-2 Variegated-leaf PI 561736 03/01/1993 GS-3 Curly-leaf PI 578012 07/31/1994 GS-4 VGS 1 PI 584770 11/01/1995 GS-5 VGS 2 PI 584771 11/01/1995 GS-6 Georgia Non-Nod PI 595385 07/01/1997 GS-7 Rusty-Leaf PI 608669 09/01/1999 GS-8 White-Spot Testa PI 608670 09/01/1999

-50- Table 9. List of peanut cultivars which have been Plant Variety Protected (PVP).

PVP No. Variety/Name Applicant Status Status Date 7100035 Goldin I Wilco Peanut Company Certificate Expired 03/05/1993 7100102 G.K. 9B Gold Kist Inc. Application Abandoned 03/05/1994 7100103 G.K. 55B Gold Kist Inc. Application Abandoned 03/05/1995 7100104 G.K. 17DS Gold Kist Inc. Application Abandoned 03/05/1996 7100110 Avoca-11 R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company Certificate Expired 03/05/1997 7300005 GK-19 AgraTech Seeds Inc. Certificate Expired 03/05/1998 7300006 G.K. 17IS Gold Kist Inc. Application Withdrawn 03/05/1999 7300066 Valencia McRan Borden Peanut Company Inc. Certificate Expired 07/19/1993 7300076 Shulamit Keel Peanut Company Inc. Ineligible 11/28/1975 7300093 G.K. 14R Gold Kist Inc. Application Abandoned 06/05/1975 7300094 GK-3 AgraTech Seeds Inc. Certificate Expired 06/01/1993 7500062 Early Bunch Florida Foundation Seed Production, Inc. Certificate Withdrawn 02/17/1998 7605011 NC 6 North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Certificate Expired 10/20/1994 7800063 Keel 76 James T. Keel Application Abandoned 07/02/1979 7900104 NC 7 North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Certificate Expired 10/16/1997 8000155 K-29 James T. Keel Certificate Expired 08/27/1999 8200141 GK-7 AgraTech Seeds Inc. Certificate Expired 02/27/2002 8500201 NC 9 North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Certificate Issued 07/31/1986 8600030 AD-1 J. Ashley Darden Certificate Expired 06/30/2004 8700093 Southern Runner Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Florida Certificate Issued 12/18/1987 8700094 KH20 Kenneth E. Hughes Certificate Issued 12/18/1987 8900116 NC 10C North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Certificate Issued 06/28/1991 9000197 NC-V11 North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Certificate Issued 06/28/1991 9200014 VC-1 AgraTech Seeds Inc. Certificate Issued 03/29/1996 9200029 Georgia Runner University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Certificate Issued 05/31/1995 9200066 127 Golden Peanut Company, LLC Certificate Issued 06/28/1996

-51- 9200115 Marc I Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Certificate Issued 09/30/1994 9200252 VA-C 92R Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Certificate Issued 09/30/1994 9300153 Andru 93 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Certificate Issued 10/31/1994 9400043 Georgia Browne University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Certificate Issued 06/30/1997 9400123 Shosh State of Israel/Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Certificate Issued 02/28/1995 Organization, The Volcani Center 9400148 SunOleic 95R Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Florida Certificate Issued 09/30/1994 9500120 David State of Israel/Ministry of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Certificate Issued 06/28/1996 Organization, The Volcani Center 9500165 Georgia Green University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Certificate Issued 06/28/1996 9600242 458 James Sutton, Mycogen Corporation Gordon Patterson, Certificate Issued 07/31/1997 Hershey Foods Corporation 9600322 AT 108 Golden Peanut Company, LLC Certificate Issued 06/30/1997 9700010 AT225 High Oleic Golden Peanut Company, LLC Certificate Issued 10/31/1997 9700074 NC 12C North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Certificate Issued 06/30/1997 9700182 SunOleic 97R Univ. of Fla. Agric. Expt. Sta. Certificate Issued 07/31/1997 9700275 AT 120 Golden Peanut Company, LLC Certificate Issued 06/30/1997 9700336 H & W Valencia 102 H & W GENETEX L.C. Certificate Issued 02/05/2002 9700337 H & W Valencia 101 H & W GENETEX L.C. Certificate Issued 02/05/2002 9800019 GK-7 High Oleic Golden Peanut Company, LLC Certificate Issued 02/05/2002 9800022 ViruGard Golden Peanut Company, LLC Certificate Issued 06/10/2002 9800041 Georgia Bold University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. (UGARF) Certificate Issued 06/10/2002 and University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station (UFAES) 9800338 TAMRUN 96 Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Certificate Issued 04/09/2002 9900189 Tamrun 98 Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Certificate Issued 04/18/2002 9900212 Florida MDR 98 University of Florida - Agric. Expt. Sta. Certificate Issued 06/10/2002

-52- 9900337 Gregory North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Certificate Issued 04/18/2002 Dr. Thomas G. Isleib (breeder) 9900338 Coan Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Certificate Issued 04/18/2002 9900419 VA 98R Virginia Tech Intellectual Properties, Inc. Certificate Issued 11/15/2002 200000134 AgraTech 1-1 Golden Peanut Company, LLC Certificate Issued 11/15/2002 200000135 AgraTech 201 Golden Peanut Company, LLC Certificate Issued 11/15/2002 200000136 AgraTech VC-2 Golden Peanut Company, LLC Certificate Issued 11/15/2002 200000182 C-99R Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Certificate Issued 11/15/2002 200000203 Hughes Runner Kenneth E. Hughes Certificate Issued 11/15/2002 200000225 Perry North Carolina Agricultural Research Service Certificate Issued 01/30/2003 Dr. Thomas G. Isleib (breeder) 200000255 Georgia Hi-0/L University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Certificate Issued 11/15/2002 200100132 Georgia Valencia University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Certificate Issued 03/10/2003 200200148 NemaTAM Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Certificate Issued 09/16/2003 200200149 OLin Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Certificate Issued 03/03/2004 200200150 Tamrun OL 01 Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Application Pending 07/02/2004 200200171 Georgia-01R University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Application Pending 07/02/2004 200200200 Wilson Virginia Tech Intellectual Properties, Inc. Application Pending 07/02/2004 200300050 Georgia-02C University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Application Pending 07/02/2004 200300170 Tamrun OL 02 Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Application Pending 07/02/2004 200300179 Andru II Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Application Pending 07/02/2004 200300204 Carver Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Application Pending 07/02/2004 200300205 ANorden Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Application Pending 07/02/2004 200300206 DP-1 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Application Pending 07/02/2004 200300207 Hull Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Application Pending 07/02/2004 200300320 AP-3 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Application Pending 07/02/2004 University of Florida, IFAS 200300321 GP-1 Florida Agricultural Experiment Station Application Pending 07/02/2004

-53- 200400089 Georgia-03L University of Georgia Research Foundation, Inc. Application Pending

-54- Table 10. List of cultivated peanuts in National Plant Germplasm System.

Taxon No. Accessions Arachis hypogaea 6804 Arachis hypogaea fastigiata 361 Arachis hypogaea fastigiata var. aequatoriana 62 Arachis hypogaea fastigiata var. fastigiata 1149 Arachis hypogaea fastigiata var. peruviana 24 Arachis hypogaea fastigiata var. vulgaris 128 Arachis hypogaea hypogaea 141 Arachis hypogaea hypogaea var. hirsuta 29 Arachis hypogaea hypogaea var. hypogaea 527 Total number of accessions 9225

-55- Table 11. List of wild peanut species in National Plant Germplasm System.

Taxon No. of accessions Arachis appressipila Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 5 Arachis archeri Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 4 Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 15 Arachis benensis Krapov. et al. 4 Arachis benthamii Handro 4 Arachis brevipetiolata Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 0 Arachis burchellii Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 10 Arachis burkartii Handro 3 Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 15 Arachis chiquitana Krapov. et al. 2 (Burkart) Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 7 Arachis cruziana Krapov. et al. 2 Arachis cryptopotamica Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 8 Arachis dardanoi Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 7 Arachis decora Krapov. et al. 3 Hoehne 15 Arachis douradiana Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 0 Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 41 Arachis giacomettii Krapov. et al. 1 Benth. 71 Arachis glabrata var. glabrata 36 Arachis glabrata var. hagenbeckii (Harms) F. J. Herm. 19 Arachis glandulifera Stalker 5 Arachis gracilis Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 0 Arachis guaranitica Chodat & Hassl. 1 Arachis hatschbachii Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 1 Arachis helodes Mart. ex Krapov. & Rigoni 6 Arachis hermannii Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 4 Arachis herzogii Krapov. et al. 0 Arachis hoehnei Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 5 Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 2 Arachis kempff-mercadoi Krapov. et al. 6 Arachis kretschmeri Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 4 Arachis kuhlmannii Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 15 Arachis lignosa (Chodat & Hassl.) Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 1 Arachis lutescens Krapov. & Rigoni 0 Arachis macedoi Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 4

-56- Arachis magna Krapov. et al. 5 Arachis major Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 11 Arachis marginata Gardner 0 Arachis martii Handro 0 Arachis matiensis Krapov. et al. 15 Arachis microsperma Krapov. et al. 0 Krapov. & Rigoni 7 Arachis oteroi Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 3 Arachis palustris Krapov. et al. 1 Arachis paraguariensis Chodat & Hassl. 13 Arachis paraguariensis subsp. capibarensis Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 2 Arachis paraguariensis subsp. paraguariensis 11 Arachis pietrarellii Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 3 Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 37 Arachis praecox Krapov. et al. 1 Arachis prostrata Benth. 3 Arachis pseudovillosa (Chodat & Hassl.) Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 5 Arachis pusilla Benth. 10 Handro 4 Arachis retusa Krapov. et al. 1 Arachis rigonii Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 2 Arachis setinervosa Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 0 Arachis simpsonii Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 9 Arachis sp. 84 Arachis stenophylla Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 2 Arachis stenosperma Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 18 Arachis subcoriacea Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 3 Arachis sylvestris (A. Chev.) A. Chev. 32 Arachis trinitensis Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 1 Arachis triseminata Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 1 Arachis tuberosa Benth. 1 Arachis valida Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 4 Arachis vallsii Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 0 Arachis villosa Benth. 13 Arachis villosulicarpa Hoehne 12 Arachis williamsii Krapov. & W. C. Greg. 1 Total 641

-57- Table 12. Peanut germplasm collections made since 1932.

Year -Year Collectors Location 1932 1933 O Brazil 1936 1937 Ar Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay 1939 O Brazil 1947 BaRi Argentina 1947 1948 StHt Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay 1950 BaRiK Argentina 1953 K Argentina 1953 RiKP Argentina 1958 K Bolivia 1959 GKP Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay 1961 GKP Brazil, Paraguay 1967 GK Brazil 1968 HLPK Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay 1971 KMoF Bolivia 1976 GKAOk Brazil 1977 GKBSPSc Argentina, Bolivia 1977 BPZ Bolivia 1977 GKSSc Bolivia 1977 GKPSc Paraguay, Brazil 1978 S Argentina 1979 GKSPScGb Bolivia 1980 KSBScCo Argentina, Bolivia 1980 BZC Bolivia 1980 KSSc Bolivia 1980 BZCJk Bolivia 1980 SPAi PERU 1981 PZi Bolivia 1981 VSGr Brazil 1981 VVeSv Brazil 1981 SPZ PERU 1982 ScVn Argentina 1982 VKRSv Brazil 1982 VSW Brazil 1983 SKBPZScCrGVSvGeM Argentina, Bolivia, & Brazil 1983 KSScCr Bolivia, Argentina 1983 VKSvVe Brazil 1983 VSMSvGe Brazil 1983 BPZ Ecuador 1984 SGSaVGdW Brazil 1984 VRGeSv Brazil

-58- 1984 VSGdSaW Brazil 1985 VKSSv Brazil 1985 VPoBi Brazil 1985 VPoPeJAj Brazil 1985 VVeSv Brazil 1985 B Peru 1986 SKGVSv Brazil 1986 VPoJSv Brazil 1986 VSW Brazil 1987 VRSv Brazil. 1988 Wi Bolivia 1988 VQFdSv Brazil 1989 Wi Bolivia 1989 1990 Wi Bolivia, Argentina 1989 VK Brazil 1990 Wi Bolivia 1990 VGaRoSv Brazil 1991 VFaPzSv Brazil 1991 VPmSv Brazil 1992 Wi Bolivia 1992 VPzVaW Brazil 1992 VSPmPzRs Brazil 1992 VSPmWiSv Brazil 1992 WiD Mexico 1993 WiAs Mexico 1994 WiSVr Bolivia 1995 VSPmSv Brazil 1995 WiWmT Ecuador 1996 WmSTMe Ecuador 1997 WiWmAz Guatemala 1999 TaEMn Ecuador 1999 WiWmAzAy Guatemala 2002 SWiQJaVg Paraguay 2002 WlPmPzCb Paraguay 2003 WlPmPzCbRb Paraguay

-59- Initials of Collectors

Initial Collectors A A.C.Allem, CENARGEN, Brazilia, Brazil. Ai O.Arriola, INIA, Cuzco, Peru. Aj M. Araujo Ar W.A. Archer, USDA As L.M. Arias-Reyes, CINVESTAV, Merida, Mexico. Ay H. Ayala, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala. Az C. Azurdia, Universidad de San Carlos de Guatemala, Guatemala City, Guatemala. B D.J. Banks, USDA Ba J.R.Baez, EEA. Manfredi, Cordoba, Argentina. Bi L.B.Bianchetti, CENARGEN, Brazilia, Brazil. Bm B. Maass, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. Bs C.T. Bastidas, DENAREF, Quito, Ecuador C C.L. Cristobal, IBONE, Corrientes, Argentina. Cb P.J. Caballero, Instituto Agronomico Nacional, Caacupe, Paraguay Co L. Coradin, CENARGEN, Brazilia, Brazil. Cr M. Corro, Univ. J.M. Saracho, Tarija, Bolivia. D S. Dominguez, Universidad Autonoma Chapingo, Chapingo, Mexico E J. Estrella, DENAREF/INIAP, Santa Catalina, Ecuador. F A.F ernandez, IBONE, Corrientes, Argentina. Fa L. Faraco de Freitas, CENARGEN, Brazilia, Brazil. Fd M. Soter Franca Dantas, CPAC, EMBRAPA, Planaltina, DF, Brazil. G W.C. Gregory, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. Ga M.L. Galgaro, UNESP, Botucatu, SP, Brazil. Gb R.W. Gibbons, ICRISAT, India. Gd I.J. de Godoy, IAC, SP, Brazil. Ge M.A.N. Gerin, IAC, SP, Brazil. Gr A. Gripp, CENARGEN, Brazilia, Brazil. H R.O. Hammons, USDA He V. Hemsy, Facultad de Agronomia, Tucuman, Argentina. Ht W. Hartley, SCIRO, Australia. J L. Jank, CNPGC, EMBRAPA, Campo Grande, MS, Brazil. Ja A. Jarvis, IPGRI, Cali, Colombia. Jk L. Janicki, PRODES, La Paz, Bolivia. K A. Krapovickas, IBONE, Corrientes, Argentina. L W.R. Langford, USDA M J.P. Moss, ICRISAT, India. Me E. Mendoza, INIAP, EE Portoviego, Santa Ana, Ecuador Mn A. Monteros, DENAREF/INIAP, Santa Catalina, Ecuador. Mo L.A. Mroginski, IBONE, Corrientes, Argentina. Mr A.R. Miranda, CENARGEN, Brazilia, Brazil.

-60- O J. Ramos de Otero, S. Agrostologia, M. Agric., Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Oj H.R. Ojeda, Fac. de Ciencias Agrarias, Corrientes, Argentina. Ok K. Okada, CIAT, Cali, Colombia. or anaranjado. Ov J.C. Oliveira, EMBRAPA, CNPO, Bage RS, Brazil. P J.R. Pietrarelli, EEA, Manfredi, Cordoba, Argentina. Pe M.I. Penteado Pm R.N. Pittman, USDA, Griffin, Georgia, U.S.A. Po A. Pott, EMBRAPA, Corumba, MS, Brazil. Pz E.A. Pizarro, CIAT/CPAC-EMBRAPA, Planaltina, DF, Brazil. Q C.L. Quarin, IBONE, Corrientes, Argentina. Qu M. Quintana, Museo Nacional de Historia Natural del Paraguay, San Lorenzo, Paraguay. R V.R. Rao, ICRISAT, India. Rb L.E. Robledo, Direccion de Investigacion Agricola, Asuncion, Paraguay Ri V.A. Rigoni, EEA Manfredi, Argentina. Ro D.M.S. Rocha, CENARGEN, Brazilia, Brazil. Rs Roseane C. dos Santos, CNPA, Campina Grande, Paraiba, Brazil. S C.E. Simpson, Texas A&M University, Stephenville, Texas, USA. Sa H.T. Stalker, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA. Sc A. Schinini, IBONE, Corrientes, Argentina. Sg, A.K. Singh, ICRISAT, India. St J.L. Stephens, USDA Sv G.P. Silva, EMBRAPA, Brazilia, Brazil. Ta C. Tapia, DENAREF/INIAP, Santa Catalina, Ecuador. V J.F.M. Valls, CENARGEN, Brazilia, Brazil. Va S.E.S. Valente, UNESP, Botucatu, SP, Brazil. Ve R.F. de Arruda Veiga, IAC, SP, Brazil. Vn R.O.Vanni, IBONE, Corrientes, Argentina. Vr I. Vargas, Fundacion Amigos de la Naturaleza (FAN), Santa Cruz, Bolivia. W W.L.Werneck, CENARGEN, Brazilia, Brazil. Wi D.E. Williams, USDA. Wl M.J. Williams, USDA, ARS, Brooksville, Fl., U.S.A. Wm K.A. Williams, USDA-ARS, Beltsville, MD. y amarillo. Z O. Zurita, Estacion Exp. Agricola, Saavedra, S. Cruz, Bolivia. Zi R.H. Zanini, INTA, Manfredi, Argentina. Zn C.N. Zanin, IBONE, Corrientes, Argentina.

-61- Table 13. Germplasm evaluations using the peanut core collection.

Character Reference Cylindrocladium black rot Isleib et at., 1995 Early leaf spot Isleib et at., 1995 Fatty acid composition Hammon et at., 1997 Meloidogyne arenaria Holbrook et al., 2000a,b Minimum descriptors Holbrook, 1997 Percent oil Holbrook et al., 1998 Preharvest aflatoxin contamination Holbrook et at., 1997 Rhizoctonia limb rot Franke et al., 1999 Tomato spotted wilt virus Anderson et al., 1996

Table 14. Valuable origins for disease resistance in the peanut germplasm collection.

Country of origin Disease resistance Bolivia Early and late leaf spot China Peanut rootknot nematode Ecuador Late leaf spot Tomato spotted wilt Tospovirus, early leaf spot and India multiple disease resistances Israel Tomato spotted wilt Tospovirus Japan Peanut rootknot nematode Mozambique Multiple disease resistances Nigeria Early leaf spot Peru Cylindrocladium black rot Senegal Multiple disease resistances Sudan Tomato spotted wilt Tospovirus and early leaf spot

-62-